-
The parents of a child whose deaf wanted her to have an in class interpreter at all times. The district disagreed with this because, it was determined she didn't an interpreter.
The U.S. Supreme court ruled that the district had not violated the EHA of 1974, and they had provide the child with the proper services.
This ruling helps clarify what the EHA of 1974 provides.
(https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley) -
The BSEA order that the Panico family be reimbursed for tuition paid while the IEP plan was under view. Burlington disagreed with this. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the district and found that the family haven't violated the EAHCA. Burlington had to reimburse the family and pay tuition. This ruling lets parents of today know their rights. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-Committee-of-the-Town-of-Burlington-v-Massachusetts-Department-of-Education)
-
The school district refused to pay for a nursing services for garret who required one during the school day. His parent requested a hearing under the IDEA. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that under the IDEA the school must provide nursing service for students that need it during the school day.The ruling inform parents of the services provided for students with special needs. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-District-v-Garret-F)