-
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
The school district argued that this was a medical need not a related service and did not feel they should have to pay for a trained person to do the service. Tastro argued that the Irving Independent School District violated the 504 Rehabilitation Act by refusing to provide the service of a clean intermittent catheterization. The school was receiving funding and Amber is in special education they are required to provide these services under the Education of the Handicapped Act. -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
-
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984)
This case involved Amber Tatro, a 3 year old little girl that needed to receive a clean intermittent catheterization every few hours a day. -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) Cont'd
It was ruled that the school district is required to provide the related services to Amber. It was determined that this was not a related service that could be done by the school nurse or a trained individual, not but a doctor.
This ruling continues to support children with disabilities because it made it possible for the children to get the services that they need. The children do not have to be in a restricted environment to do so. It prohibits school from isolating and rejecting students. -
Honing vs Doe 494 US 305 1988
This case continues to support Special Education because it prohibits schools from excluding special education students when they have behavior issues related to their disabilities. It holds the school accountable for providing the the services that meets the needs of that child. Lastly, they are held accountable for not enforcing punishments that they would not enforce on a student that doesn't have a disability. This way everyone is treated equal. -
Honing vs Doe 494 US 305 1988
-
Honing vs Doe 494 US 305 1988
The court ruled that there would not be a "dangerous exception" provision. Schools may use a number of alternative methods when responding to dangerous students, including a 10 day suspension. This time can be used to review the students IEP to determine is adjustments need to be made, additional services added or aide from the court needed. The state has to provide services if the local districts cannot. Lastly, a student can only be removed or replaced if its agreed to by the parents. -
Honing vs Doe 494 US 305 1988
Doe's argument was that the actions of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction violated his rights under the "stay put" provision if the Educations of the Handicapped Act by indefinitely suspending him.
Honig, the California Superintendent argued that previous case rulings failed to recognize a "dangerous exception" to the "stay put" provision. -
Honing vs Doe 494 US 305 1988
This case was about two emotionally disturbed young men that had difficulties controlling their emotions that lead to outburst and acts of disruption. One young man was in Special Education and the other qualified for IDEA. Both students were suspended for five days for their actions at school but once the five days were over they were expelled indefinitely. This resulted in "John Doe" filing a law suit against San Francisco United School District and California Superintendents office. -
Florence County School District Four vs Shannon Carter, 510 US 7 (1993)
-
Florence County School District Four vs Shannon Carter, 510 US 7 (1993)
Shannon's parents argued that because the Florence County School failed to meet Shannon's needs her parents enrolled her into a private school and requested that they be reimbursement for the cost of tuition. The School district argued that the predicted IEP and the progress that Shannon would make was adequate. They also argued that because the school the family chose was not an "approved" school the family did not qualify for reimbursement. -
Florence County School District Four vs Shannon Carter, 510 US 7 (1993)
In this case a young girl, Shannon Carter was diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD. The school completed a IEP for her and predicted that she will only increase her reading skills by 4.4%. Her parents felt that this was not adequate and after very little success with trying to get the school to challenge Shannon, they removed Shannon from the school and enrolled her into a private school that specialized in working with children with learning disabilities. -
Florence County School District Four vs Shannon Carter, 510 US 7 (1993)
The Supreme Court ruled that if a public school fails to meet the needs of the student and don't provide the appropriate level of education the parents have a right to place the child in an adequate private school and be reimbursed for tuition. The school districts failure to provide appropriate free public education violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). -
Florence County School District Four vs Shannon Carter, 510 US 7 (1993)
This case continues to support children with disabilities by providing them with the chance of receiving an appropriate education that meets their needs without the hardship of funding it. This case gives the parents a choice when advocating for their children when the public schools are failing to meet their needs. This case I believe assist in school districts being held accountable to assure the special education programs are meeting the needs for the diverse population of students. -
References
Henley M., Ramsey R., Algozzine R. (2009). Characteristics of and Strategies for Teaching Students with Mild Disabilities. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Honig v. Doe. Supreme Court Case Files Collection. Box 141. Powell Papers. Lewis F. Powell Jr. Archives, Washington & Lee University
School of Law, Virginia -
References
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985).
Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.