-
-
On the issue of racial segregation in education, the Courts ruled that “separate but equal” schools were unconstitutional.
-
Courts find that the practice of “tracking”- a method of grouping students by ability as determined by tests- was unconstitutional, as it violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause by discriminating against poor and minority students.
-
Courts decided that the following were unconstitutional: 1) students with a different language base had to be tested not in English, but their primary language. 2) that IQ tests that were biased towards a culture could not be used to justify the placement of students in special education classes. 3) Tests of a verbal nature must be tailored to the cultural heritage of the student. And 4) children cannot be placed in special education as a result of performance on IQ tests given to a group.
-
Both rulings concerned the right to an education In the first, considered students with intellectual disabilities, and their right to an education. This far reaching decision resulted in a new definition of education. This decision was expanded in the second case, to all children with disabilities. Mills v. improved the considerations of the legal rights of children.
-
SCOTUS decision extends equal educational opportunities to students with non English speaking backgrounds. Language appropriate teaching mandated to conform with equal opportunity ideal.
-
Case decision also includes 1972. Tests with cultural and/or racial bias cannot justify placement of African American children, due to bias, in classes for student with "mild intellectual disability." IQ tests were completely ruled out in the 1979 decision, for African American students, but only in the state of California.
-
Under PL 94-142, chatheterization is deemed by SCOTUS to be considered a related service. Court constrains that related services are only a set that permits participation by those students whose participation will improve as a result.
-
In a case concerning hearing impairment, SCOTUS addresses the concept of "appropriate" in terms of education. The Court specifies that "appropriate" is defined as a reasonable opportunity to learn, rather than a perhaps stricter test of achievement.
-
In a decision concerning the placement of students with Down syndrome, the Fifth Circuit Court decides that a segregated class was appropriate. Case creates a two part test for compliance with the best interests of the student's rights.
-
Court rules that the accommodations should be made to the classroom before student with disabilities is removed to segregated classes. This case creates precedent favoring an integrated classroom experience.
-
Court decision increase scope of related services to include more care for students requiring it to participate, as long as this care is not required to be performed by a physician.
-
SCOTUS decision puts burden of proof on relieved party in disputes over a child's individualized education program (IEP).
-
In this SCOTUS decision, under IDEA, parents are only entitled to reimbursement for attorneys' fees but not those of experts' consulting fees.
-
In an unanimous decision, a parent's right to represent the interest of their children was affirmed by the SCOTUS, in cases founded in IDEA. Case extends IDEA into rights of parents, not solely students.
-
SCOTUS decides that public schools are liable for expenses incurred by parents who- due to lack of specific services necessary for their child at a school- must move their child to an appropriate private school with necessary services provided, under IDEA. Applies even if student was not provided with special services at the public school.