-
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE HENDRICK HUDSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al.,
This case presents a question of statutory interpretation Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals and the District Court.
This was to establish funds for students, who are handicapped the Act imposes extensive procedural requirements upon State receiving federal funds under its provisions. The ruling was set and the case was finalized and in motion for the educational system of AL to recieve funds for edcuational purposes for children who are handicapped. -
School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) BURLINGTON SCHOOL COMMITTEE, et.al., Petitioners
he Education of the Handicapped Act (Act), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., requires participating state and local educational agencies “to assure that handicapped children and their parents or guardians are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of free appropriate public education” to such handicapped children. This was to allow the parents to be involved with changes and be able to participate in the act of the education program. -
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. ex rel. Charlene F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
he Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, was enacted, in part, The district insinuted it was not nessessary for a handicapped child with spinal problems. The district felt as though they should not be responsible for those expenses in the educational environment.“[T]he regulations state that school nursing services must be provided only if they can be performed by a nurse or other qualified person, not if they must be performed by a physician”).