-
Brown v. Board of Education
Court established that segregation based on a person's unalterable characteristic is unconstitutional. Equal educational opportunities were extended to racial minorities. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
The court outlined due process safeguards and student's rights to a recorded hearing with an impartial officer, rights to appeal, and rights to written notice at all stages of the process. It further provided all children with disabilities a right to publicly supported education. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Provided the agreement that all children with intellectual disabilities between the ages of 6 and 21 must be provided a free public education in a setting most like the programs provided for peers without disabilities. -
Larry P. v. Riles
This case banned the use of standardized IQ instruments to identify African American students for EMR due to their cultural and racial bias. -
Springdale School District v. Grace
The state is required to provide an appropriate education but not necessarily the best education to a student with disabilities. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley
This case established that school districts must provide support services necessary for a child to benefit from instruction as stated in the IEP. Procedural requirements for IDEA must be met and progress must be examined to ensure this benefit. Further, it set the precedent that education methodology should be determined by educators not the courts, and, the least restrictive environment for some children with handicaps could be separate classes or institutions. -
Roncker v. Walter
This decision is the basis for the Roncker portability test. Services should be provided in a nonsegregated setting if possible, even if this requires transportation or modification to the nonsegregated setting. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
Established that all related support services required for a child to benefit from special education, that could be provided by a qualified individual other than a physician, are the responsibility of the school district. -
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
Students can only be placed in a particular setting following the development of an IEP and placement meeting. This placement decision must be revisited annually at the minimum and the student must be placed in the least restrictive environment with students without disabilities to the maximum extent possible. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
This case is the basis of the Daniel Test when determining if the mainstreaming mandate should become secondary to the appropriate education mandate.
1. Can education in the general classroom be provided satisfactorily without negatively affecting classroom peers?
2. Does more restrictive environment allow the integration of the student to the maximum extent possible in non-academic settings? -
Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Rachel H.
The ninth circuit adopted the Rachel Test to determine LRE.
1. Educational benefits in general education compared to special education.
2. The nonacademic benefits of interaction in the general classroom setting.
3. The effect of the student's presence on the teacher and other students.
4. The cost of mainstreaming.
If these factors were positive then student should be placed in the general education classroom with supplemental services. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Medical services that could be provided by a qualified person are guaranteed regardless of the cost to the school district in support of the zero-reject policy. -
H.B. v. Las Virgenes
Appropriate services and placement cannot be determined prior to an IEP meeting. IEP teams must be willing to consider alternative placements presented at the meetings. -
Dzugas v. Southold Union Fee School Distrit
This case established that an IEP must provide more than a trivial benefit for students. -
M.J.C v. Special School District No. I
School districts must have proactive programs designed to seek out and identify children with disabilities.
