-
Larry P. v. Riles (California)
The Plaintiffs: Larry P.’s stance in this case was that the black students were being discriminated against and disproportionately placed in Educable Mentally Retarded (E.M.R.) classrooms in the San Francisco Unified School District ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). Their stance was due highly in part to the district’s decision to determine the students’ placement by their individual standardized I.Q. scores ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Larry P. v. Riles (California)
Wilson Riles’ stance in this case was their use of the individual standardized I.Q. test by demonstrating the test’s approval based on the statutory requirements ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). They also noted that the students’ placement was not solely based off of their scores on the individual standardized I.Q. test; the test was just an aid in validating their already present academic concerns ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Larry P. v. Riles (California)
The following link is of a slide show presentation about the Larry P. v. Riles (California) case created by Sherwood Best, Ph. D. Link text -
Larry P. v. Riles (California)
The courts instructed the school district not to place students in E.M.R classrooms or identify them as students with disabilities using individual standardize I.Q. test and individual standardize I.Q. test scores ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). The court order also required the district to re-evaluate all of the black students that were placed in E.M.R classrooms during that time ("LARRY P. v. RILES | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Larry P. v. Riles (California)
Implications of the legal ruling: The legal ruling of the Larry P. V. Riles case supports the needs of exceptional students by aiding in the acknowledgement that not all students can be properly evaluated, diagnosed, and placed for proper services using one type of standardize test.The court’s legal ruling also raised the amount of care and attention that those in power take to ensure all policies and assessments are within proper state and federal regulations. -
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts
The Plaintiffs: Due to the lack of services, the plaintiffs moved the student from a public school to a private school that could better accommodate the student per the needs of the student’s IEP. The plaintiffs then began to seek reimbursement from the public school, for the cost of the private school setting. ("School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education | law case", 2014). -
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts
The Defendants: The public school sector denied the plaintiffs request for reimbursement. With the perspective of the defendants, they believed that the student was being accommodated adequately with the services provided by the public school.The defendants believed that the plaintiffs abandoned the due process hearings as well as they forfeited their rights to reimbursement ("School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education | law case", 2014). -
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts
Implications of the legal ruling: The implications of the Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts case support the rights of both exceptional students and their parents/legal guardians. The right to appropriate education, even if it is not necessarily free was solidified for exceptional students. The right to a financial reimbursement from public school for private school tuition and fees were given to parents/legal guardians if their student was not receiving appropriate services. -
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts
The following website is a website that breaks down the whole court case of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts Link Text -
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts
Summary: The court case was rose to the United States Supreme Court ("School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education | law case", 2014). The US Supreme Court ruled in fact the student’s placement at the private school was “appropriate” placement, so the plaintiffs were to receive reimbursement for the private school fees and tuition ("School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education | law case", 2014). -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
The Plaintiffs: The Sacramento City School District’s Board of Education’s argument was that Rachel was not progressing and matriculating efficiently towards her IEP goals; Rachel did not interact and socialize with her peers, which limited her growth and progression socially ("BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
Summary: The court case ruling ruled that with the proper supplemental support and services, Rachel would be able to progress and matriculate towards her IEP goals ("BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | Leagle.com", 2016). With the court case’s ruling Rachel was able to be placed into a general education second grade classroom ("BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
The Defendants: The parent’s of Rachel Holland’s argument was that Rachel was making progress towards her IEP goals. They also noted that she was actively socializing with her peers, which made a positive impact on her social skills ("BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | Leagle.com", 2016). The Holland’s argued that with supplemental support and services, Rachel could adequately be accommodated ("BD. OF EDUC., SACRAMENTO CITY SCHOOL D. v. HOLLAND | Leagle.com", 2016). -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
Implications of the legal ruling: The implications of the legal ruling of the Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland supports exceptional students in the classroom by setting requirements that must be met before an exceptional student can be excluded from general education classes. It also encouraged school districts to properly train teachers and school personnel in teaching and academically supporting exceptional students. -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
Implications of the legal ruling: The implications of the legal ruling of the Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland supports exceptional students in the classroom by setting requirements that must be met before an exceptional student can be excluded from general education classes. It also encouraged school districts to properly train teachers and school personnel in teaching and academically supporting exceptional students. -
Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland
The following link is of a slide show presentation about Board of Education, Sacramento City School District v. Rachel Holland case. Link text
You are not authorized to access this page.
