-
Brown vs. Board of Education
Segregation by race was ruled unconstitutional. This paved a path for the argument that children with disabilities should be able to have a public education. -
Hobson vs. Hansen
The tracking of students from nationally normed tests were found to be biased as well as unconstitutional. The tracking discriminated against students that were lower income and minorities. -
Diana vs. State Board of Education
Students being placed in special education classes based on a culturally biased IQ test given to children who speak different languages was no longer allowed. -
Mills vs. Board of Education, District of Colombia
This case extended the Pennsylvania decision to include ALL children with disabilities. This gave children with exceptionalities to have a public education no matter their functional level. -
Larry P. vs. Riles
This case was a parallel to Diana vs. State Board of Education. Black students can not be placed in classes with other students that have mild intellectual disabilities based off of tests found to be culturally and racially biased. This ruling only applied in California. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The state must allow all children with intellectual disabilities age 6-21 to have a free public education. This also allowed parents to play a role in the educational decisions for their child. Preschool was now available to children with intellectual disabilities if the district does the same for non-disabled students. -
Lau vs. Nichols
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that giving students the same opportunities was not equality. Giving a bilingual student that struggles with English the same books as a child that is fluent in English is not a good treatment for those students. This required schools to offer special language programs to be considered equal opportunity schools. -
Tatro vs. State of Texas
The U.S Supreme Court ruled that catheterization was not considered to be an exempted medical procedure because school nurses and health care aides could perform it. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley
While addressing the issue of what is an appropriate education for students who are deaf, The Supreme Court ruled that educations means students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn. -
Oberti vs. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District
Students must be considered to be put in a general education class with aids and services before being put into a segregated class. This put in place the Least restrictive environment. (LRE) -
Daniel R.R. vs. State Board of Education
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that segregated placement is appropriate for students with severe disabilities as long as it is the least restrictive environment. It also must be seen that the student has been integrated to the maximum extent that the student is comfortable with. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District vs. Garret F.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that school health care services that are intensive and continuous and necessary for a student to attend school qualify as related services. -
Schaffer vs. Weast
The U.S. Supreme court ruled that the burden of proof is placed on the party seeking relief. -
Arlington Central School District Board of Education vs. Murphy
The Supreme Court ruled that parents get reimbursed for professional fees or an educational consultant costs. -
Winkleman vs. Parma City School District
The Supreme Court ruled that parents have the right to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases.