-
Period: to
SPECIAL EDUCATION and DISCIPLINE of STUDENTS with DISABILITIES
-
Brown vs. Board of Education
*Ended segregation of white and black children in public schools. Related to special education by attainment of equal education opportunities in public schools for all citizens ot the United States.- Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1975) strongly parallels Brown vs. BOE
-
Elementary and Secondary Education Act - ESEA
*Johnson's "War on Poverty"
*Addressed inequality in education by creating Title Programs. It also stressed high standards and accountability for LEAs.
Titles:
I - Focused on the "Educationally Deprived' (poor children)
II - Provides Materials
III - "Students at Risk" (after school programs, counseling, ELL Programs)
IV - Funding for universities and colleges to perform research on education
V - Funding for each state's D.O.E
VI - Layout of programs -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
*Pennsylvania contended that schools were not required to admit children "who have not attained the mental age of five." *Expense was cited as a primary reason for denial of services. *Judgment - Schools are required to provide appropriate services to individuals up to the age of 21. *Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives parents rights to notification of changes to IEPs and can appeal decisions made by their school district regarding an IEP. -
Mills V Board of Education
*District denied/expelled children solely on their disabilities. *District Estimated 12,340 students with various disabilities were not provided services between 1972-1973 due to cost. *Judgment:The Fourteenth Admendment protected the students from being unfairly penalized due to their disability. *Students are also afforded procedural protections: Notice of change regarding suspension, expulsion, reassignment, transfer from class and legal counsel can attend hearings. -
Wood v. Strickland
- Three 10th grade girls admit to "spiking" punch with malt liquor at an extracurricular swim meeting (no injuries).
- Girls were first suspended and then expelled for the remainder of the semester (three months). The decision was made without a hearing. Girls sued, claiming that such expulsion infringed on responents due process rights
*Court of Appeals ruled that school district officials have "qualified immunity" unless proof of malice exists.
-
EDUCATION for ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN Act - EHA
*This law ensured free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with disabilities who are ages 5 - 21. *Was the basis of federal funding of special education.- Student should be given the opportunity to learn in the least restrictive environment and receive and individual education Plan (IEP). *Amended in 1983, 1986, reauthorized and expanded in 1990 (IDEA)
-
Board of Education Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
*First Supreme Court special education decision *When school districts and parents contend, the school must demonstrate that the methodological choice is reasonably calculated to lead to student progress. -
Brookhart v. Illinois State Board of Education
*Court heard this to determine if students with disabilities could be required to pass a Minimum Competency Test (MCT) to graduate high school. Decision:
*It would not be an appropriate accommodation to alter or waive the test. *Assessments need to be in a format and environment that is a fair assessment considering a students disability to prove that he/she are able to meet the minimum requirement of a program (otherwise qualified). -
Honig v. DOE
*Children with disabilities are given some procedural protection from expulsion for misbehavior related to their disability. *"Stay-Put" Clause - Students stay-put in their current educational placement, unless an agreement is made between the district and the school. *Students can be removed up to 10 days (without hearing) and school in not required to provide services. -
Individuals with Disabilities Educatioin Act - IDEA
*Individual Education Program (IEP) to meet the unique needs of the student.
*A school official qualified in special education, the child's teacher, the child's parents, and, where appropriate, the child, all participate in the development of an IEP.
*Parents who are dissatisfied with a proposed IEP may file a complaint with the state educational agency.
*Hearing results can be appealed.
*Courts can rule on individual cases and their decisions can be appealed. -
Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter
Supreme Court ruled that a court can order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally remove their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and puts the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper IDEA, but does not meet all the requirements. -
Cedar Rapids v. Garret F.
*A paralyzed student with full mental capacities requires a ventilator to survive.
*United States Supreme Court that the services required by Garret's ventilator dependent condition and the financial burdens related that accompanied them, were the responsibility of the school during the course of the school day. -
Schaffer v. Weast
*Supreme Court held that the party bringing the suit bears the burden of proof, whether that party is the parents or the school system.
*This decision reversed Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District. -
Arlington Central Sch. Dist. v. Murphy
*This decision decided that parents can win a dispute over a child’s IEP and not be entitled to collect monies spent on experts. However, award of reasonable attorney's fees can be recouped. -
P. v. Newington Board of Education
*Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
*A student and parents requested an administrative hearing to challenge the IEP, contending that the plaintiff was not sufficiently integrated into the regular classroom.
Courts LRE Two Pronged Test:
* "whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily for a given child."
* "whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate." -
Cox v. Warwick Valley CSD
*Cox (a middle school student and his parent) has a history of misbehavior.
*Student writes some VERY disturbing entries in a journal. Principal places Cox in suspension room and school instructs parents to seek treatment for their son (they do not). Principal contacts CFS.
* Parents claim 1st and 14th amendment right violations. Court finds in favor of school district. Principal did nothing unreasonable.
