-
Period: to
P.A.R.C vs. Pensylvania 343 F. SUPP. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
Students were denied enrollment in public schools. The school board's stance was that they could deny education if a child was determined to be untrainable. PARC argued that children were denied school and rights were violated under the due process clause and the 14th amendment. The final ruling was that no child that is mentally retarded are capable of benefitting of an education. This started the IEP. It supported by guaranteeing an education. www.fortelawgroup.com -
Period: to
Board of Education vs. Rowley 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
This case elaborated what was appropriate under FAPE. It opened the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms. BOE were not required a sign language interpreter. Rowley said providing it helped further her education. Ruling was children were entitled to access to SPED benefits. IDEA had two parts. School district doesn't have to maximize each child's potential. (www.fortelawgroup.com -
Period: to
Honig vs. Doe 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
This case stated that school couldn't expel a child based on actions because of their disability. Doe claimed shouldn't be expelled under IDEA. Honig wanted to expel due to behavior issues. IDEA claims child cant be expelled for more than 10 days. IEP meeting must be held to determine connection of child's misconduct and disability. It gave way to the functional behavioral assessment. Basically, you can't expel if a child's action is due to his disability. (www.fortelawgroup.com