-
PARC vs. Pennsylvania 1972
Plaintiff: The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) claimed that certain state laws had unconstitutionally denied their children with mental disabilities a public education.
Defendant: The Pennsylvania School Board had given public schools the authority to deny free education to had reached the age of 8 but had not yet reached the mental age of 5. -
Period: to
PARC vs. Pennsylvania
Ruling: The court ruled that the existing law restricting mentally disabled students was unconstitutional. The court also stated that the state of Pennsylvania had an obligation to provide students a free public education meaning regardless of their disability could be denied an education.
Support students: The ruling supports the needs of students by allowing all students despite their disability a free public education. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
IDEA provides a free public education to children with disabilities . IDEA was first passed by Congress in 1975. The law leads the way for schools and agencies to provide free public education to children with disabilities. -
Board of Education vs. Rowley 1982
- Amy Rowley was a deaf girl, who's parents sued the school for not giving her an interpreter. They stated that the denial of an interpreter went against the Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This act required schools who accept federal funds to provide "free and appropriate education" to handicap children.
- The school boards defense was that Amy could read lips well and did not need an interpreter. School administrators and a sign language expert insisted Amy could otherwise be successful.
-
Board of Education vs. Rowley 1982
-After appeals, it was ruled that Rowley was not learning as much without an interpreter, therefore she was not getting a "free appropriate education". The appeals made law makers take a good look at how the Handicapped Act was interpreted.
-This ruling supports students with disabilities by relooking at the Handicapped Act, interpreted in a way that provides "free appropriate public education", which was now defined to give handicapped and other children the same opportunities. -
Timothy W. vs. Rochester, New Hampshire School District 1989
-Courts ruled that Timothy would not benefit from an education.
-Through administrative hearings, it was ruled that Timothy's capacity to benefit could not determine his eligibility to receive a public education. Rochester then had to provide him with an opportunity for education. - Because of the Timothy W. case, the zero-reject policy was established. This policy within IDEA states that no child can be denied an education, even when their disabilities make them appear uneducable. -
Timothy W. vs. Rochester, New Hampshire School District 1989
- Timothy W. was mentally retarded and had other disabilities. He was denied special education in a public school, the district stating he was not educatable.
- After Timothy's mother filed a complaint with the N.H. DOE, they ordered the district to place Timothy. -The district appealed stating Timothy needed medical care not school.
-
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990
The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. THe ADA protects people with disabilities in these areas: employment, transportation, state and government services, and telecommunications.