-
1. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176
Amy Rowley was a student who was deaf and her parents wanted her to have a sign language interpreter. The school system denied it because they said that Amy was receiving an adequate education. So the parents filed a law suit under the handicapped children's act. The final ruling was in favor of Amy Rowley and she was granted a sign language interpreter. -
Continued. Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176
. The reason being was that the judge felt that even though she could learn without an interpreter she would achieve her highest potential with an interpreter. This will impact the future of students with disabilities because even though a student may be able to do well without a device or support does not mean that students should not be able to reach their highest potential with their support.
Link text (https://massadvocates.org/rowley/) -
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305
John doe was a student who had a behavioral problem and was in his direct disability. Doe had a incident that required him to be suspended. but the suspension was held because the student placement center wanted to push for expulsion. the student filed a suit that under the (EAHCA) their was a stay put provision and the student could not stay away from school. The school system felt that the student was a danger to students and staff and should not return until after the hearing. -
Continued. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305
The final ruling was in favor of John Doe and the courts ordered the school system to lift the indefinite suspension for a student who has a disability related to his incident.
This will impact the future of disability students by teachers as well as administrators has to know students disabilities before trying to suspend or act on other consequences.Students has IEP's and BIP's for a reason and they have to be followed and understood.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Honig-v-Doe -
1.Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7
Shannon had a learning disability and her parents and school officials drew up a IEP for Shannon. Shannon parents were unsatisfied with the IEP that they withdrew their child from the school. The school official reviewed the IEP and felt that it was appropriate for Shannon. Shannon parents put her in a private school and wanted to be reimbursed because under the (IDEA) she is suppose to receive an appropriate and free education. -
Continued. Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7
School district felt that the private school did not meet the IDEA requirements. The ruling was in favor of Shannon's parents and they were reimbursed the money that was paid to the private school. The reason that this will impact students with disabilities is because if the present school that a student is attending is not meeting the IDEA requirements, the parents can find a place where their child education is met. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/510/7.html
