Brown V Board Of Education Case Summary
Case Year Effect
Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 Inclusion 14th amendment
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972 FAPE, no cost, no deny mental retard.
Stuart vs. Nappi 1978 Student stay in school despite bad behavior
Armstrong vs. Kline 1979 Extended school year services
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley
contested IDEA and lost.
Board of Education v. Rowley 1982 Individual plan & supportive services. A program of a special child is compared to the program of a none disabled for appropriateness.
Abrahamson vs. Hershman 1983 If residential placement is required, school must provide it via district funds
Dept of Ed. vs. Katherine D 1984 Home bound is not LRE [Least Restrictive Environment], receive medical services …show more content…
Irving Indep.
School District vs. Tatro 1984 Physical and health impairments may not prevent from public school, no physician
Smith vs. Robinson 1984 School must pay for necessary residential placements
Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center 1985 Cannot zone group homes out of neighborhoods
Burlington School Committee vs. DOE 1985 District pay for private placement. Reimburse expenditure on a private school
Timothy W. vs. Rochester School 1988
1989 Zero rejection, FAPE
Honig vs. Doe 1988 Can’t exclude child for misbehavior but can be removed temporarily for emergency act.
Danny R. R. vs. State Board of Ed. 1989 LRE, FAPE means student has right, to inclusion to the maximum extent possible
Zobrest vs Catalina School District 1993 District pay services needed even when he attends a parochial school without violating separation of church and state
Florence County School District vs. Carter 1993 If 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. Holland 1994 LRE - Four factors, including the needs of all children in the school, that must be considered for FAPE
Cases regarding Assessment
Date
Effect
Hobson vs. Hansen 1967-8 IQ testing is unconstitutional - discriminates against poor children and Afro-American students
Diana vs State Board of Ed. 1970 Non biased Assessments in child's native language
Tinker vs. Des Moines 1970 Constitutional rights of children
Covarrubias vs. San Diego USD 1971 Monetary damages paid due to misclassifying Mexican Americans as disabled
Mills vs. Board of Education 1972 Provide services regardless of district's ability to pay. Include students with behavior problems, emotional, hyper, & mental retardation.
Larry P vs. Riles 1974
IQ test may not be sole assessment - over placement of minority or mental retardation students in SPED
Mattie T. vs. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979
1981 State 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. 1981 Assessments must be timely
Allen v. McDonough 1976 Timely sufficient evaluations, individualized programs, & reviews of programs.
Frederick v. Thomas 1976 Learning disabled= appropriate education , evaluation must be designed to identify learning disabled.
Laura v. NYC board of education 1978 Evaluation for entrance into spe ed should not violate student’s right to treatment and due process.
Stuart v. Nappi 1978 School can’t expel disable student without providing an appropriate alternative program
New York Association for Retarded v. Carey 1979 Mental retard w hepatitis B can’t be segregated.
Parents in Action in Sp Ed v. Hannon 1980 Intelligence tests are valid if used in multidisciplinary evaluations.
Battle v. Commonwealth 1980 Denial of a free public ed for violate Edu. For All Handicapped Children Act.
S-I v. Turlington 1981 Disciplinary action that change disabled child’s placement must follow procedures of P.L.94-142
Oberti v. Board of Ed. 1993 Support a family preference to educate mental child in Gen Ed.
Foley v. Special School of St Louis County 1998 Public schools not obligated to provide sp ed service if parents place child in a private school
Cedar Rapids v. Garett F 1999 School provides medical services (nurses) that don’t require a physician.
Schaffer v. Weast 2005 Complainants have burden of proof in spe ed litigation.
Forest Grove School District v. TA 2009 Parents reimbursed for private school special ed, even though didn’t participate in special ed in public school.
YEAR HISTORICAL EVENT IMPACT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1965 Congress 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.
1972 Two 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.
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Prohibits discrimination against disabled in public & private sectors or else schools lose federal funding.
1974 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) isenacted. Parents access info collected, maintained, or used by a school district regarding their child.
1975 The 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.
1977 The 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.
1986 The 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.
1990 The 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.
1990 The 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.
1997 IDEA reauthorized
Quality education Include in state and district-wide assessments. Accommodations. Gen Ed teacher join IEP team.
2001 No 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.
2004 IDEA 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.
Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 Inclusion 14th amendment
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972 FAPE, no cost, no deny mental retard.
Stuart vs. Nappi 1978 Student stay in school despite bad behavior
Armstrong vs. Kline 1979 Extended school year services
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley
contested IDEA and lost.
Board of Education v. Rowley 1982 Individual plan & supportive services. A program of a special child is compared to the program of a none disabled for appropriateness.
Abrahamson vs. Hershman 1983 If residential placement is required, school must provide it via district funds
Dept of Ed. vs. Katherine D 1984 Home bound is not LRE [Least Restrictive Environment], receive medical services …show more content…
Irving Indep.
School District vs. Tatro 1984 Physical and health impairments may not prevent from public school, no physician
Smith vs. Robinson 1984 School must pay for necessary residential placements
Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center 1985 Cannot zone group homes out of neighborhoods
Burlington School Committee vs. DOE 1985 District pay for private placement. Reimburse expenditure on a private school
Timothy W. vs. Rochester School 1988
1989 Zero rejection, FAPE
Honig vs. Doe 1988 Can’t exclude child for misbehavior but can be removed temporarily for emergency act.
Danny R. R. vs. State Board of Ed. 1989 LRE, FAPE means student has right, to inclusion to the maximum extent possible
Zobrest vs Catalina School District 1993 District pay services needed even when he attends a parochial school without violating separation of church and state
Florence County School District vs. Carter 1993 If 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. Holland 1994 LRE - Four factors, including the needs of all children in the school, that must be considered for FAPE
Cases regarding Assessment
Date
Effect
Hobson vs. Hansen 1967-8 IQ testing is unconstitutional - discriminates against poor children and Afro-American students
Diana vs State Board of Ed. 1970 Non biased Assessments in child's native language
Tinker vs. Des Moines 1970 Constitutional rights of children
Covarrubias vs. San Diego USD 1971 Monetary damages paid due to misclassifying Mexican Americans as disabled
Mills vs. Board of Education 1972 Provide services regardless of district's ability to pay. Include students with behavior problems, emotional, hyper, & mental retardation.
Larry P vs. Riles 1974
IQ test may not be sole assessment - over placement of minority or mental retardation students in SPED
Mattie T. vs. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979
1981 State 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. 1981 Assessments must be timely
Allen v. McDonough 1976 Timely sufficient evaluations, individualized programs, & reviews of programs.
Frederick v. Thomas 1976 Learning disabled= appropriate education , evaluation must be designed to identify learning disabled.
Laura v. NYC board of education 1978 Evaluation for entrance into spe ed should not violate student’s right to treatment and due process.
Stuart v. Nappi 1978 School can’t expel disable student without providing an appropriate alternative program
New York Association for Retarded v. Carey 1979 Mental retard w hepatitis B can’t be segregated.
Parents in Action in Sp Ed v. Hannon 1980 Intelligence tests are valid if used in multidisciplinary evaluations.
Battle v. Commonwealth 1980 Denial of a free public ed for violate Edu. For All Handicapped Children Act.
S-I v. Turlington 1981 Disciplinary action that change disabled child’s placement must follow procedures of P.L.94-142
Oberti v. Board of Ed. 1993 Support a family preference to educate mental child in Gen Ed.
Foley v. Special School of St Louis County 1998 Public schools not obligated to provide sp ed service if parents place child in a private school
Cedar Rapids v. Garett F 1999 School provides medical services (nurses) that don’t require a physician.
Schaffer v. Weast 2005 Complainants have burden of proof in spe ed litigation.
Forest Grove School District v. TA 2009 Parents reimbursed for private school special ed, even though didn’t participate in special ed in public school.
YEAR HISTORICAL EVENT IMPACT ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1965 Congress 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.
1972 Two 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.
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Prohibits discrimination against disabled in public & private sectors or else schools lose federal funding.
1974 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) isenacted. Parents access info collected, maintained, or used by a school district regarding their child.
1975 The 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.
1977 The 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.
1986 The 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.
1990 The 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.
1990 The 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.
1997 IDEA reauthorized
Quality education Include in state and district-wide assessments. Accommodations. Gen Ed teacher join IEP team.
2001 No 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.
2004 IDEA 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.