-
Period: to
P.A.R.C v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
The Defendants, 13 Named School Districts
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State Board of Education.
The Plaintiffs, Residents of the common wealth of Pennsylvania who had Mental disabilities has been denied the right to access free public education. " the plaintiffs claimed that the named school districts unfairly classified certain students as "uneducable and untrainable," (https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=11082) -
Period: to
Special Education cases that changed the treatment of students with special needs
Three cases that changed forever the layout of how students with special needs are treated as well as the end of discrimination of education based on the disability of the individual. -
Period: to
Out come of (PARC) Vs. Pennsylvania
All Parties agreed that some laws has been unconstitutional. The State was charged with giving students between the age of 6-21 a free education in the public sector. They also had been charged with giving sufficient access to the educational tools needed so that the education would be on the same pattern of education as their peers. This was a big win for the plaintiffs. 1972 minor changes had been made to the decree. -
Period: to
The results from (PARC) Vs. Pennsylvania
The land mark case never rose above the district level it did spark other parties in their own states to take up cases aiding their own students the ability for access to free education. With this case many children now have the ability to be given the respect and education they need to contribute to society and give them chances they may not have has without this case. -
Period: to
Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley
Plaintiff, Rowley family
Defendant, Board of Education
Education of the handicapped act provides federal dollars to assist state and local agencies to educate handicapped children. " Policy must be tailored to the unique needs of the handicapped child by means of an "individualized educational program" (IEP). The IEP must be prepared (and reviewed at least annually) by school officials with participation by the child's parents or guardian." (Justia.,US Supreme Court). -
Period: to
Outcome of Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley
The courts found that Rowley was not receiving the free appropriate education she deserved. However, the also stated that the school was not required to provide a sign language interpreters to Deaf Students. This went through to the Supreme Court which sided with the petitioners. They found that an interpreter was not a requirement provided by the states. -
Period: to
The Results of Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
As Detailed in the (IEP) the school was obligated to provide (FAPE) To students with disabilities. So children can still receive the education they need but depending on what is needed for their disability it left little to help better understand what constitutes a funded need. Such as in the Case of getting an interpreter for Amy Rowley. Though this has made great strides in meeting their needs. -
Period: to
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
Petitioner, Bill Honig
Respondent, John Doe and Jack Smith.
The Case was brought on by two Students who had been suspended or expelled from school due to behavior issues associated with the disability."stay-put" provision, which provides that a handicapped child shall remain with his or her current educational placement pending completion of any review proceedings, unless the parents and state or local educational agencies agree to removal." https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-728 -
Period: to
Outcome of Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
The supreme court had passed a decision down that a California school board violated the (EAHCA) The court found that the state must provide service when local school boards fail to do so. This ensured that suspensions more then 10 days are not permissible. -
Period: to
The Results of Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
When the outcome of this case came about it made a major impact on children with behavior issues being presented with options to help them. Giving a chance for parents to be more involved and to give these students a better outcome. The importance of this case in understanding behavior issues and working with families whose children suffer can benefit them for future families.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koh5Piik8qm