ESE 601 - Week 1 Assignment - Historical Timeline

Timeline created by facebooker_2335412866673567
  • Doe v. Koger: Each Party Stance

    The parents requested a due-process hearing because their child was expelled from school who had an intellectual disability. The school denied the due-process hearing for students with disabilities based on the student's disciplinary issues.
  • Doe v. Koger 1979: Final Court Ruling

    The school district court agreed with the parent's request. Before changing the placement of a student with disabilities through suspension or expulsion a hearing must be held. The hearing must determine was the student behavior was a manifestation of their disability.
  • Doe v. Koger: Supporting Students with Disabilities

    Doe v. Koger: Supporting Students with Disabilities
    This case is known in special education history because it helps to determine if students with disabilities can be suspended or expelled as a measure of discipline. A manifestation determination has to be done first to determine if the behavior was a result of the student's disability. Reference Paige pond's portfolio. Retrieved from https://paigepondspecialedportfolio.weebly.com/ii-influential-court-cases.html
  • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education: Each Party Stance

    Daniel, a six-year-old with Down Syndrome, parents believed that he should spend half-day in a special education class and the other half in a traditional Pre-Kindergarten class. The school believed that Daniel was not benefiting from a traditional Pre-Kindergarten class and should be placed in an all-day Early Childhood Special Education classroom with access to peers without disabilities during lunch and recess.
  • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education: Supporting Students with Disabilities

    Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education: Supporting Students with Disabilities
    This case helped establish the law that students who are not mastering or able to participate in any skills taught in the general education classroom should be evaluated into a more restrictive environment. A more restrictive environment allowed for more centered learning for students with individual and diverse needs to be successful. Reference Tomlinson, K. Special education and the law. Retrieved from https://specialeducationandthelaw.weebly.com/major-case-law.html
  • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education: Final Court Ruling

    The parents took the case to the school district and circuit court. Both the school district and circuit court supported the school's decision that Daniel will benefit from an all-day early childhood special education. Furthermore, it was granted that during lunch and recess Daniel will be around with peers without disabilities.
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F: Each Party Stance

    Garret was a student who was a quadriplegic with a ventilator. His parents had provided a care provider to attend his medical needs but felt that the school board should support the nursing services. The Cedar Rapids Community School District refused to provide the nursing services for Garret because they felt it was the responsibility of his parents to provide the service.
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F: Supporting Students with Disabilities

    Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F: Supporting Students with Disabilities
    This case helped establish the law that school boards should fund medical-related services for students. Students such as Garret were now included in the public school system to receive an education and have their medical needs met as well. Reference Suggett, P. (2017, April 8). Cedar rapids v garret f [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/36fZw-zip_A
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F: Final Court Ruling

    A hearing was required under IDEA and an administrative law judge ruled that the school board should be responsible for providing the services. When moved to the federal court Iowa agreed the medical services needed were not an exclusion of IDEA's related services. The case was moved to the Eighth Circuit Court and they agreed the services provided can be done by a nurse or qualified person since Garret's medical services did not require a doctor.