Board of Education v. Rowley1982Individual plan & supportive services. A program of a special child is compared to the program of a none disabled for appropriateness. Abrahamson vs. Hershman1983If residential placement is required, school must provide it via district funds Dept of Ed. vs. Katherine D1984Home bound is not LRE [Least Restrictive Environment], receive medical services Irving Indep. School District vs. Tatro1984Physical and health impairments may not prevent from public school, no physician Smith vs.
Robinson1984School must pay for necessary residential placements Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center1985Cannot zone group homes out of neighborhoods Burlington School Committee vs. DOE1985District pay for private placement. Reimburse expenditure on a private school Timothy W. vs. Rochester School1988 1989Zero rejection, FAPE Honig vs. Doe1988Can’t exclude child for misbehavior but can be removed temporarily for emergency act.
Danny R. R. vs. State Board of Ed.1989LRE, FAPE means student has right, to inclusion to the maximum extent possible Zobrest vs Catalina School District1993District pay services needed even when he attends a parochial school without violating separation of church and state Florence County School District vs. Carter1993If schools has no appropriate services but a private school does, district may have to pay, even if they did not approve the placement and parents acted unilaterally Board of Education in Sacramento, CA vs.
Holland1994LRE – Four factors, including the needs of all children in the school, that must be considered for FAPE Cases regarding Assessment Date Effect Hobson vs. Hansen1967-8IQ testing is unconstitutional – discriminates against poor children and Afro-American students Diana vs State Board of Ed. 1970Non biased Assessments in child’s native language Tinker vs. Des Moines1970Constitutional rights of children Covarrubias vs. San Diego USD1971Monetary damages paid due to misclassifying Mexican Americans as disabled Mills vs.
Board of Education1972Provide services regardless of district’s ability to pay. Include students with behavior problems, emotional, hyper, & mental retardation. Larry P vs. Riles1974 IQ test may not be sole assessment – over placement of minority or mental retardation students in SPED Mattie T. vs. Holladay (Mississippi)1979 1981State must revamp assessment to be fair to minority students and assess in timely fashion Provide appropriate education in least restrictive environment Luke S. & Han S. vs. Nix, et. al. 1981Assessments must be timely Allen v.
McDonough1976Timely sufficient evaluations, individualized programs, & reviews of programs. Frederick v. Thomas 1976Learning disabled= appropriate education , evaluation must be designed to identify learning disabled. Laura v. NYC board of education1978Evaluation for entrance into spe ed should not violate student’s right to treatment and due process. Stuart v. Nappi 1978School can’t expel disable student without providing an appropriate alternative program New York Association for Retarded v. Carey1979Mental retard w hepatitis B can’t be segregated.
Parents in Action in Sp Ed v. Hannon1980Intelligence tests are valid if used in multidisciplinary evaluations. Battle v. Commonwealth1980Denial of a free public ed for violate Edu. For All Handicapped Children Act. S-I v. Turlington 1981Disciplinary action that change disabled child’s placement must follow procedures of P. L. 94-142 Oberti v. Board of Ed. 1993Support a family preference to educate mental child in Gen Ed. Foley v. Special School of St Louis County1998Public schools not obligated to provide sp ed service if parents place child in a private school Cedar Rapids v.
Garett F1999School provides medical services (nurses) that don’t require a physician. Schaffer v. Weast 2005Complainants have burden of proof in spe ed litigation. Forest Grove School District v. TA2009Parents reimbursed for private school special ed, even though didn’t participate in special ed in public school. YEARHISTORICAL EVENTIMPACT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1965Congress adds Title VI to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 creating a Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (this bureau today is called the Office of Special Education Programs or OSEP).
Educating students with disabilities is still NOT mandated by federal or state law. However, creation of the Bureau signified that a change was on the horizon. 1972Two significant supreme court decisions [PARC v. Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. D. C. Board of Education (1972)] apply the equal protection argument to students with disabilities. The courts take the position that children with disabilities have an equal right to access education as their non-disabled peers.
Although there is no existing federal law that mandates this stance, some students begin going to school as a result of these court decisions. 1973Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Prohibits discrimination against disabled in public & private sectors or else schools lose federal funding. 1974The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) isenacted. Parents access info collected, maintained, or used by a school district regarding their child. 1975The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) is enacted.
This was also known as P.L. 94-142. Today we know this law as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Student parent participation, 12 disability categories. Before 1975, children with disabilities were mostly denied an education solely on the basis of their disabilities. EAHCA, along with some key supreme court cases, mandated all school districts to educate students with disabilities. Free Appropriate public education, due process, least restrictive environment, IEP, IFSP, Nonbiased Evaluation. 1977The final federal regulations of EAHCA are released.
The final federal regulations are enacted at the start of the 1977-1978 school year and provide a set of rules in which school districts must adhere to when providing an education to students with disabilities. 1986The EAHCA is amended with the addition of the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act. This amendment makes clear that students and parents have rights under EAHCA (now IDEA) and Section 504. 1990The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is enacted. Section 504 regulations is part of the ADA. In turn, numerous “504 Plans” for individual students start to become more common place in school districts.
Guarantees the rights of disabled people and accommodations. 1990The EAHCA is amended and is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This amendment calls for many changes to the old law. One of the biggest was the addition of transition services for students with disabilities. School Districts were now required to look at outcomes and assisting students with disabilities in transitioning from high school to postsecondary life. 1997IDEA reauthorized Quality educationInclude in state and district-wide assessments. Accommodations. Gen Ed teacher join IEP team.
2001No Child Left Behind is enacted. This law calls for all students, including students with disabilities, to be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014. 2004IDEA reauthorized Expand service from birth to 5 Transition services planning at 16 There are several changes from the 1997 reauthorization. The biggest changes call for more accountability at the state and local levels, as more data on outcomes is required. Another notable change involves school districts providing adequate instruction and intervention for students to help keep them out of special education.