-
Hobson vs/ Hansen
The school district of District of Columbia used a system called "tracking" or in other words academic study program, that grouped students based on their scores of an Aptitude Test. This test determined what track placement. Sacks, Arlene. (2001). Special Education: A Reference Guide
Handbook.California: ABC-CLIO -
Hobson vs Hansen cont'd
Civil Rights activist Julius Hobson sued the Board of Education and the superintendent Carl Hansen , arguing that these tracks were not based on equal education and opportunity of low socio-economic students, but more of a tool to discriminate against them. Hansen argued back that using the track system was not based upon the student's family income but their performance on the aptitude test. -
Hobson vs/ Hansen con'd
After investigation and research it was found that the most African Americans, who derived from low income status, fell into the lower tracks and once placed in the track they couldn't be moved. Also, it was discovered that the test scores used to place the students were administered to them in early elementary. These tests were outdated and unreliable, in turn Jude Skelly Wright, deemed "tracks" unequal and discriminant Check out this link for more info
www.usedlaw.com/333-hobson-v-hansen.html -
Hobson vs/ Hansen cont'd
This paved the way for special education students, because there is a disproportioned number of minorities who are faced with discrimination of income and ill-placed in special education programs. This court case proved that income should not be a factor. It mandates that certain protocol has been put in place to see to equal and rightful placement for students needing special needs. Plus, it gives underprivileged students the same equality of education as those who are fortunate. -
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) sued the state of Pennsylvania for not giving equal educational rights to children with Mental Retardation Fiebach, Robert. (2016). Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
From http://www.pilcop.org/pennsylvania-association-for
retarded-citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/ -
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pensylvania cont'd
PARC stated that Pennslyvania allowed public schools to forbid children who didn't have the mental capacity of a five-year-old by the time of first grade or if a school psychologist deemed the student uneducable. The state argued that the student were taken care of in parameters they saw fit. The court ruled quickly in the plantiff's favor, stating the defendants did not follow FAPE. Also, the service was deemed a related service, not medical since a physcian was not needed. -
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cont'd
The decisions made from this court case's ruling does not give any state justifications on who they can and can not educate regardless of mildness to severity. In my opinion with the type of related services and assitive technology, students who receive special education services have made gains in mental development check out this link for more info
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEX1YnkPFg -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro
Amber was an 8-year-old girl diagnosed with Spina Bifida. This disease resulted in her not being able to release her bladder voluntarily and needed a clean, intermittent catherization (CIC), every 3 to 4 hours. Goldberg, Doug. (2010, October 28). Irving Independent School
District. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) [Web Log Comment].
Retrieved from http://www.specialeducationadvisor.com/irving-
independent-school-district-tatro-468-us-883-1984/ -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro cont'd
The parents of Amber sued the district for refusing to do the catherization. They argued the district revoked her rights under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Irving argued they did not have to render the CIC service because it was not an "educational need" -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro
Without Amber having the CIC, it affected her receiving a free and appropriate public education , so the courts approved CIC being it is a "related service". It is an educational need and falls under the Act. This allowed Amber to attend school and receive the service during school hours. -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro
The impact this court case made on special education is that it gave access to a public, educational environment, where students can receive the clinical attention. This does not force them to remain at home or some other costly, alternative education because of a situation they had no control over. Check out this link for more info
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Irving-Independent-School-District-v-Tatro -
Florence Co. School District Four vs. Shannon Carter
The parents of Shannon Carter, a 9th grade student with dyslexia and ADHD , felt her IEP did not meet the standards of IDEA. During the court hearing, the district declined the parents' claim of the inadequate IEP and ruled it was sufficient. Sacks, Arlene. (2001). Special Education: A Reference Guide
Handbook.California: ABC-CLIO -
Florence Co. School District Four vs. Shannon Carter
The parents in the meantime moved Shannon from public to private school. She ended up graduating from the private school , but the parents wanted reimbursement of their costs. The school district didn't find reason to reimburse the parents, seemingly how they "willingly" moved Shannon to a private school. They weren't forced, nor an agreement was made stating the district would do such a thing. -
Florence Co. School District Four vs. Shannon Carter
After the trial the court ruled in the parents favor, stating during Shannon's tenure, there was proof of inadequate and improper accommodations and the times of her IEP reviews. Since students with disabilities are required to receive an equal education, the case favored that if parents withdraw their child from a public school that provided an inappropriate education under IDEA and moves to a private school that does, a reimbursement will happen. -
Florence Co. School District Four vs. Shannon Carter
The impact this court case had on the world of special education is givng the parental rights to parents and the opportunity to exercise their rights. This cracks down on the school districts making sure that IEPs are constructed with fidelity and why now great efforts have to be made in reaching out to parents before a meeting convene. At least 3 attempts have to be made. Check out this link for more info
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1523.ZO.html