The Mattie T. Consent Decree (Mississippi)
Citation
MATTIE T., et al., Plaintiffs, v. HENRY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants DC75-31-S
Plaintiffs and Defendants The plaintiffs listed in the original case were as follows: Mattie T., Aaron, O., Julius M., Aretha M., Anna M., Carol M., Christopher O., Christine O., James M., Michael E., Johnny W., Erma B., Louise R., James T., Charles P., Glendale P., Sammy Y., William Y., Tommy W., Myrtle R., Stevenson M., Bennett M., Steven J., Jacqueline W., Bennie F., John W. The defendants listed in the original case were as follows: Charles E. Holladay, et al and their successors in office
Setting
The basis of this case was twenty-six school aged children with disabilities represented by their parents, …show more content…
The 2003 Consent Decree replaces and supplants the 1979 Consent Decree in its entirety. Mattie T. also brought to light issues concerning Child Find, due to the increase in the number of students identified as emotionally disturbed (EmD) and other heath impaired (OHI). The 2003 Consent Decree wanted to reduce the over identification of minority students, which led to three strategies being implemented. The first one is Response to Intervention (RtI), to help prevent over identification and to revisit recently identified students and to consider that another classification might be more appropriate for the student. Mattie T. also wanted to make sure that students were in the correct setting by increasing the number of students and the amount of time they spent in regular education classes while decreasing the number of children in separate Special Education classes. Due to congress passing, in 2003, the Least Restrictive Environment Act, it became a measure of the programs success as well as a legal
Citation
MATTIE T., et al., Plaintiffs, v. HENRY JOHNSON, et al., Defendants DC75-31-S
Plaintiffs and Defendants The plaintiffs listed in the original case were as follows: Mattie T., Aaron, O., Julius M., Aretha M., Anna M., Carol M., Christopher O., Christine O., James M., Michael E., Johnny W., Erma B., Louise R., James T., Charles P., Glendale P., Sammy Y., William Y., Tommy W., Myrtle R., Stevenson M., Bennett M., Steven J., Jacqueline W., Bennie F., John W. The defendants listed in the original case were as follows: Charles E. Holladay, et al and their successors in office
Setting
The basis of this case was twenty-six school aged children with disabilities represented by their parents, …show more content…
The 2003 Consent Decree replaces and supplants the 1979 Consent Decree in its entirety. Mattie T. also brought to light issues concerning Child Find, due to the increase in the number of students identified as emotionally disturbed (EmD) and other heath impaired (OHI). The 2003 Consent Decree wanted to reduce the over identification of minority students, which led to three strategies being implemented. The first one is Response to Intervention (RtI), to help prevent over identification and to revisit recently identified students and to consider that another classification might be more appropriate for the student. Mattie T. also wanted to make sure that students were in the correct setting by increasing the number of students and the amount of time they spent in regular education classes while decreasing the number of children in separate Special Education classes. Due to congress passing, in 2003, the Least Restrictive Environment Act, it became a measure of the programs success as well as a legal