-
Period: to
The Case PARC V. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In 1971 PARC sued The CommonWealth of Pennsylvania over laws that gave public schools the ability to prevent disabled and handicapped children from free education if they had reach the age of 8 years old, but still had not reached the mental age of 5. PARC argued that not having free education for children with disabilities negatively effected the child's development. The commonwealth augured that the cost to benefit outweighed benefits and that the laws were still appropriate. -
Pennsylvania Associate For Retarded Children (PARC) v. CommonWealth of Pennsylvania
Li, L. (2013). PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education, DC. N.p.: Rooted in Rights. Retrieved from http://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/ -
The Ruling PARC V CommonWealth of Pennsylvania
The court ruled in favor of the PARC. The judge state that no child that is eligible for public education can be denied it. All schools must provide accessible, free and suitable education to all children regardless of their disability. No child is to be suspended for more than 2 days without a hearing. All parties involved were provided with publicly supported education programs that fit their needs.
(Li, 2013) -
Mills V. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
Mead, J. F. (n/a). MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. N.p.: US Education Law. Retrieved from http://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-columbia.html -
Period: to
The Ruling Mills V Board of Education of DC.
The court ruled that the board of education in their prevention of providing educational services to students had violated their students rights to education under the education laws in DC. The court also stated that not having funds was not a valid excuse for violating the rights of their students, and that it is the boards job to find the finds to fund the needed programs. The courts also ordered that all children are allowed a free education no matter their disability. -
Period: to
The Case Mills V Board of Education of DC
In 1972 a class action suit was filed against the board of education of DC. Mills students had been classified as having behavioral problems, or were mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, or hyperactive had been excluded from school or denied educational services. They argued that school board had failed to provide them with school and educational services which denied their right to an education. The Board of Education of DC argued that they did not have the funds to educate these students -
Period: to
The Case Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
1984 The family of Amber Tatro filed a suit against Irving Independent School district for not providing related services to their daughter during her school hours. Her parents argued that the school denying the request for services for her CIC violated EAHCA which requires that children with disabilities shall have educational and related services. The school district argued that isn't a service they have to provide due to it being a medical procedure. (Umpstead, N/a) -
Period: to
The Ruling Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
The court ruled that the CIC administration was not a medical procedure due to a physician not having to be the one to preform the service. The court also ruled that the school district did in fact violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which allowed for an award for attorney fees to be paid. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
Umpstead, R. R. (n/a). Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. N.p.: Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irving-Independent-School-District-v-Tatro -
Period: to
REFERENCES
Cheatham, A. (2011, February 1). Significant Court Cases in Special Education (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. [Presentation slides]. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/AngieCheatham/court-cases-6780307 -
My final take
In every case on my timeline I have found that if not for advocay many children even today would not have educational and related services due to them by law. Children no matter what disability they have, have the right to a beneficially education because it not only us their right, but it helps with their development no matter how small that maybe. Children can go to school no matter if they have CIC's, or need diaper changes. Nothing can prevent a child from attending school. Because parents -
Period: to
My final take continued
fought for the rights of their children, organizations fought for the rights of children. Without theses laws my two year old would not have speech, and therapy services for his development. My six year old would not have an IEP that allows him to still be a successful student who just happens to learn differently. I am so grateful for those who came before me to fight for the rights of all children.