-
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) 1971 verses Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
PARC fought for the rights for students who had developmental (mental/physical) disabilities to have an opportunity to attend school in the public sector. Whereas the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania felt that they could according to state law deny a child who had not reached the mental age of 5 years old to enter into the public school system. It was also up to parents with children of (mental/physical) disabilities to pay for their child's education through private programs -
Final Court Decision for The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) 1971 verses Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The final court ruling in this case sided with the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC). Through the Fourteenth Amendment due process stating that parent had the right to seek prior notice for any changes to their child's educational plan and the right to appeal the decision through the school districts. -
Historical value of The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) 1971 verses Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
This was another win for the families with children with mental/physical disabilities. Partnering with the Federal Department of Education the case of Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) verses Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was one of two cases that set a precedence for equal opportunity and protection for all students to receive an education and set the pace towards the National Special Education Law. -
1982 Board of Education Hendricks Hudson School District v Rowley
The Board of Education Hendricks Hudson School District verses Rowley fought for the right of those with disabilities to have the rights for support service and benefit from the educational programs. The Board of Education Hendricks Hudson School District would not provide sign language interpreter to student Rowley for aiding in her education. -
1982 Final Court Decision Board of Education Hendricks Hudson School District v Rowley
The decision was made by the court clearly outline support services for all with mental/physical developmental disabilities within the educational system. In addition the funding that is provided to the schools to help provide families with this support services such as in Rowley’s case for need for a sign language interpreter falls within the scope of support services and cannot be denied. -
1982 Historical Value of Board of Education Hendricks Hudson School District v Rowley
Through this law it clearly defines the need for support services for mentally/physically handicapped in the educational system. Partnering with the Educational Disabilities Act in which federal helps assist states, local agencies to provide for the specialized needs of the students. This win of this case it helps to establish a clear definition of support services in the educational system through IEP and the resources in which schools have to accommodate such needs as they arise. -
2007 Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The Winkelman v. Parma City School District: The Winkelman’s brought suit against the Parma City School District to fight for their rights to represent their child with special educational needs. The Parma City School District worked alongside the Winkelman’s to create a program for their child with special education needs. The dispute arose when the Winkelman’s disagreed with what the Parma City School District came up with. -
2007 Final Court Decision Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The decision came down at first to a loss for the Winkelman. Yet on several appeals they won the right as parents to represent their child’s interest in special education cases. Thus giving the parents legal rights to representation under the IDEA (Individuals Disabilities Educational Act). -
2007 Historical value of Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The outcome and success of this case helped to pave a way for parents with a child/children with developmental disabilities to have a say so in their educational needs. Yet there were limits in that compensation for private program cost.
