-
Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972)
The party’s stance for this case is to allow students with disabilities to be given public education, regardless the cost that it provides (Cheatham, 2011). Mills argued that several school-aged students with disabilities were held from a public education program. The government and school system argued that if they provide public education, it will be hard to give due to lack of financial resources. https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/ -
Period: to
Mills v. Board of Education Final Court Ruling (1972)
The final court ruling is to provide educational services for all students with disabilities. The services should be given and not from the schools’ financial capabilities (Cheatham, 2011). In addition, the court ruled that the District of Columbia shall provide to each child of school age a free and suitable publicly-supported education regardless of the degree of the child's mental, physical or emotional disability or impairment (Mills v. Board of Education, 1972). -
Period: to
Mills v. Board of Education Historical Legal Ruling (1972)
The historical legal ruling is to provide students with educational and related services that accommodate their needs. This ruling will give students with disabilities to have equal opportunities to education. Schools and teachers are accountable for the academic achievement of all students including those who receive special education services (Henley, 2009). This will show the capabilities of students with disabilities on how valuable education can be to their lives. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
The party’s stance is to provide special education and services for Amber Tatro, who is known with a defect of spina bifida (Massachusetts Advocates for Children, n.d.). The Education of the Handicapped Act or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to provide a CIC during school hours. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 amended to provide a IEP, early childhood development classes and special therapy, but no permission to CIC. https://massadvocates.org/billsview/ -
Period: to
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro Historical Legal Ruling (1984)
The historical legal ruling is to provide equal rights of public education and services for all handicapped students. All handicapped students will have the opportunity to special education. This will allow students with disabilities to feel happy and safe from equal opportunities in and out of school. Furthermore, these students are given the chance to no longer feel hidden or isolated (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUn6luZQaXE -
Period: to
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro Final Ruling (1984)
The final court ruling is to provide Amber and all students who are handicapped with the right to public education and related services. This will allow Amber to be provided with her CIC and other services that will support her through school. Some examples of related services that will be provided are transportation, audiology, counseling, physical and occupational therapy (Massachusetts Advocates for Children, n.d.). https://massadvocates.org/billsview/ -
School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Education of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985)
The party’s stance for this case is to allow handicapped children and parents or guardians to be a part of an IEP (Individualized Educational Program). To motivate parents to participate in ways to be active with their child’s development and education. There was a disagreement with the Town school and Michael Panico’s parents about financial requirements due to having an IEP. -
Period: to
School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Education of Mass. Final Ruling (1985)
The final court ruling is the Town having the responsibility of paying for Michael’s tuition. The reason being that there were no proper procedures of consultation for the parents. They believe that the IEP was not given the correct information for the parents to act for their child to have the opportunity to be provided with the appropriate education and services. The family of Michael will be reimbursed and given the proper procedure of IEP. https://massadvocates.org/billsview/ -
Period: to
School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Education of Mass. Historical Legal Ruling (1985)
The historical legal ruling is to allow them to feel supported and freed by schools that provide the best care. Students that have the same or different disabilities as Michael have the right to a free and appropriate education. IEP is beneficial for all students of special needs to have. Current performance is to show how the child’s disability affects his or her involvement and progress in general education (Henley, 2009).