-
The issue was educational segregation. The Supreme Court ruled that all children had a right to a public education and that it was illegal to discriminate against children due to race, color, and disability. The Supreme Court stated that this issue violated the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution. It prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the laws to any person within their jurisdictions.
-
The issue was a right to education. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania settled the case that resulted in a consent decree to which the state agreed to provide free public education for children with mental retardation.
-
This ruling established the constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to an education in public school to match their needs. Which includes specialized instruction, irrespective of their functional degree.
-
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision. The court ruled in this case that the 180-day rule violated the plaintiffs right to appropriate public education. The court also stated that this was a violation on the Law 94-142
-
In the 1979 ruling prohibited the use of IQ tests for placing African American Children with mild intellectual disability in the classroom. This ruling applied only to the state of California.
-
The Supreme Court ruled that the act of 1974 EHA did not require that special instruction or supportive services provided under the law by the state government to disabled students be designed to help them achieve their full potential as learners. Students needed to be given an opportunity to learn.
-
The Supreme Court ruled that under Education for all Handicapped Children's Act of 1975 provided children with the right to catherization services during school hours. The court ruled that the school board had to give these services.
-
In this landmark case The Fifth Court Circuit of Appeals ruled that students with disabilities have a right to be included in both academic and extracurricular programs of general education.
-
The issue was least restrictive environment. The court ruled that students with disabilities must have placement in a classroom with supplementary aids and services. Student cannot be excluded from a general education classroom solely because curriculum, services, or other practices would require adjustment. Prohibiting a learner from the education in classroom necessitates justification and documentation.
-
The Supreme court ruled that the party bringing the case must bear the burden of proof, whether it is the school or the parents. The parents of Brian Schaffer sued the school district stating that their child did not receive an adequate education.
