-
Period: to
Results of the Zobrest v. Catalina School District
Due to the Zobrest case, children will not be denied the support that they need just because they attend a sectarian or private school. This case makes it very clear that individuals that fall under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, should and do qualify for services that are provided by their school district. This case made sure that there was no grey area under the Free Exercise Clause (Westlaw, 1993). -
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
https://prezi.com/i55gerfemde4/zobrest-v-catalina-foothills-school-district/
In the case of Zobrest, a deaf child is denied his rights to have an interpreter present during his classes. Zobrest was always allowed an interpreter, until his parents transferred him to a catholic school starting his 9th grade year. The district believed that they were supporting his religious beliefs, not his education. The child parents knew that it was the schools responsibility to provide support services. -
Period: to
Results of the Cedar Rapids v. Garret F
The final ruling, once it went to the supreme court, was that the school district was indeed financially responsible for Garrett's nursing services. The school is not however responsible, if the services were given by a physician.
This ruling made it possible so that children have the necessary supported services they need to become successful in an educational setting. Children and their gaurdians now have one less obstacle to worry over regarding the support they need during school. -
Cedar Rapids v. Garett F.
https://prezi.com/cyni6tzbtoli/cedar-rapids-community-school-district-v-garret-f/
In this case Cedar Rapids v. Garett F, the school district felt that even though Garrett F was indeed of need of nursing services while attending school, they should not be financially responsible for it. Garett parent however felt differently. They believed that the school district should be financially responsible due to the fact that is related services and not medical services. -
Period: to
Results of the Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The case went to the sixth circuit who reversed the ruling of the administrative court. The judges felt that under the IDEA, parents can pursue their rights in the administrative stage, over "free appropriate public education," (Steiner, 2007). This set the stage in a whole new way for parents being the "voice" of theirs and their child's rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Parents are now able to represent themselves in a court sitting. -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
In the Winkelman case, they believed that the school district was not adhering to the IDEA by allowing their child a “free appropriate public education”. The school district however, said that they "were going" to allow this to happen. This was not enough for the parents, who did not agree with the IEP that was put into place. The parents had an administrative hearing, but then was soon denied. The administrative courts dismissed the case due to the parents representing theirselves.