-
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education
A handicapped student and his parents, fell the school is not complying with the Education of the Handicapped Act. The school district says the general education classroom curriculum is beyond his capabilities. The court found that some children do not benefit from mainstreaming since it does not provide them with a free appropriate public education. This ruling more clearly outlines the meaning of FAPE.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/1036/382507/ -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Garret F. was a student with health issues that required care from a specially trained nurse during school hours. The school district refused to provide the services, stating they were not responsible for paying for his care under IDEA. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district was responsible for paying for Garret's nursing services. This ruling supports disabled students because it aligns with the principles of FAPE.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUESE601.16.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5 -
C.J. v. Indian River County School Board
Parents of C.J. thought she should be entitled to special education services because of bipolar disorder and oppositional defiance disorder. The school did not agree since there was no support for a finding of emotional disturbance. The court determined that she was not eligible for services since the behavioral issues had no impact on her academics. This clarified placement guidelines for special education classes.
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUESE601.16.1/sections/ch01lev1sec5