-
MARYLAND ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN v.STATE OF MARYLAND
A class action suit was brought by the Maryland Association for Retarded Children and 14 mentally retarded children against the
state of Maryland and its State Board of Education, State Superintendent of Education, Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene, Director
of the Mental Retardation Administration, and local boards of education for their failure to provide retarded or otherwise handicapped
children with an equal and free public education. -
The Beginning
On June 1, 1973, oral arguments were heard on a large number of motions by the state and local defendants to dismiss the suit on
various grounds. The court refused to dismiss the suit.
(The plantiffs felt as if free public education should have been offered to the handicapped and retarded children. The state simply wanted to argue that there should be some special plan in place for these children, something that segregate the retarded students from every other student.) -
Maryland Association For Retarded Children V State of Maryland
As a result of a pre-trial conference held August 10, 1973, the defendants agreed to provide educational opportunity for a number of
named plaintiff children beginning in September, 1973. This agreement has the effect of a preliminary injunction and will require
programming to be provided for these children pending the outcome of the full trial. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/70s/74/74-CSC-CEC.pdf -
Maryland Association For Retarded Children V State of Maryland
On September 7, 1973, the court "abstained" with respect to the right to education issues in the case, requiring the plaintiffs to obtain
a state court determination of their right to an education under state law before proceeding further with this branch of the case in the
federal court.
(My summary on this ruling is that the state did the right thing by ruling in favor of the plantiffs. All children should be entitled to an education despite their disabilities.) -
GREER V ROME CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
A hearing was held for Christy Greer, a seven year old girl with down's syndrome whose parents wanted her in a regular kindergarten classroom. However, the school district felt as if Christy should have been in a self-contained special education classroom. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911638950F2d688_11518/GREER%20v.%20ROME%20CITY%20SCHOOL%20DIST. -
GREER V ROME CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
The school district convened a placement meeting to discuss the evaluation, develop an Individual Education Program (IEP) for Christy, and make a placement decision. Present at this meeting were the school district's special education director, Christy's regular education kindergarten teacher, the psychologist and psychometrist who had evaluated Christy, a speech/language pathologist, a special education teacher, the Elm Street School principal, and Christy's parents. -
GREER V ROME CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Christy's parents have her evaluated by an independent psychologist. The psychologist determines that Christy would benefit from being in a regular classroom and not a special education contained classroom. -
GREER V ROMAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
The regional hearing officer held an administrative hearing. The special education director testified on behalf of the school system that, in her opinion, Christy could not make progress in the regular class at Elm Street Elementary and could make the most progress in the self-contained special education class at Southeast Elementary. -
GREER V ROMAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Christy's parents then filed this action in the district court on July 10, 1989. At that time, Christy had spent one year, the 1988-89 school year, in a regular kindergarten class at Elm Street Elementary without the assistance of any supplemental aids or services. She remained in this regular kindergarten class during the pendency of this litigation, through the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Christy also had speech therapy while attending the school during these years. -
GREER V ROMAN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
In August of 1990, the court rules with the right supplemental aids Christy can adequately be educated in a regular classroom. (I consider these cases to be landmark in a sense that you've got small scale cases that start with something as simple as a disagreement between what a parent feels is best for their disabled child and what a school feels is best. However, this sort of ruling ripples throughout the entire special needs community. -
CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT V GARRETT F
During Garret’s early years at school his family provided for his physical care during the school day. When he was in kindergarten, his 18-year-old aunt attended him; in the next four years, his family used settlement proceeds they received after the accident, their insurance, and other resources to employ a licensed practical nurse. In 1993, Garret’s mother requested the District to take responsibility
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cedar-Rapids-Community-School-District-v-Garret-F -
CEDAR RAPIDS COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT V GARRETT F
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on March 3, 1999, ruled (7–2) that the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school boards to provide continuous nursing services to disabled students who need them during the school day. In this case, I think the rulings were right, if the child requires special services, they should receive them http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm