Landmark Cases

Front 1

Brown Verses Board of Education

Back 1

Court ruled that it was illegal practice under the fourteenth amendment to arbitrarily discriminate against any group of people. The court then applied this principle to the schooling of children, holding that separate education for African American children is not equal education thus setting precedence for future disability cases

Front 2

Hobson verses Hansen (1967)

Back 2

a U.S. district court declared that a school system's tracking system was invalid. However, special classes were allowed, provided that testing procedures were rigorous and that retesting was frequent.

Front 3

Dianna v. State Board of Education (1970)

Back 3

California was mandated by the court to correct bias in assessment procedures used with Chinese American and Mexican American students. Diana had 3 very important holdings that would later influence the enactment of federal special education laws.

Front 4

Three special education laws from Dianna

Back 4

1. If a student's primary language was not English, the student ahd to be tested in both English and his or her primary language.
2. Culturally unfair terms had to be eliminated fro all tests used in the assessment process.
3. If intelligence3 tests were to be used in the assessment process they had to be developed to reflect Mexican American culture.

Front 5

Parc v. Commonwealth (1972)

Back 5

schools could not exclude students who were mentally retarded and that all students should be provided the right to a free and public education.

Front 6

Wyatt v. Stickney (1972)

Back 6

a federal court ruled that mentally retarded children in state institutions had a constitutional right to treatment

Front 7

Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School (1972)

Back 7

Children could not be placed in a educable mentally retarded classes unless they scored lower than two standard deviations below the population mean on an approved IQ test administered in the child's own language. In addition, it also stipulated that other assessment procedures must be used in addition to intelligence tests, and that parental permission must be obtained for such placements.

Front 8

Mills v. Board of Education

Back 8

This case set forth future guidelines for federal legislation, including the rights of students with disabilities to have access to a free public education, due process protection, and a Mandated requirement to provide special education services regardless of the school district's financial capability.

Front 9

Luke S. and Hans S. v Nix et al (1982)

Back 9

all evaluations had to be completed within a 60 day time period. The judge argued that greater pre-refferal asessments should be done before a referral is made.

Front 10

Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson school district v. Rowly

Back 10

This case had to do with a deaf girl who sought the full time interpreter but was denied because the courts ruled that the obligation to provide an appropriate education does not mean a school must provide the best education or one designed to maximize a student's potential.

Front 11

Jose P. Ambach

Back 11

Plantiffs filed suit against New York City complaining about inappropriate delivery of services. Judge ruled that from the time of referral a maximum of 30 days can lapse and that all evaluations must be timely evaluations.

Front 12

Larry P vs. Riles

Back 12

This case said that african americans do not have to have iq tests

Front 13

Daniel R vs. State Board of Education

Back 13

This ruling had to do with inclusion. In determining whether to place a student with disabilities in a regular classroom, the student with the disability need not learn at the same rate as the other students in the class. Part of the required supplemental aids and services must be the modification of the regular education curriculum for he student when needed. The court also ruled that the school need not modify the program beyond recognition. Also, in looking at whether it is appropriate for the child to be in reqular education, in other words whether the student can benefit educationally from regular class placement the school must consider the broader educational benefit of contact with non disabled students, such opportunities for modeling appropriate behavior and socialization.

Front 14

Gerstmeyer v Howard

Back 14

Howard school district had been told that a child needed evaluation and did not recieve it so the parents paid for a private tutor and put their child in private school and sued the district and won the costs of tuition

Front 15

Section 504 law

Back 15

This was passed to help students who do not qualify for special education services to receive services for things such as ADD and diabetes. It is referred to as a 504 plan

Front 16

The family education and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Back 16

Gives parents and students the rights to review anything in their educational file. Be careful what you write.

Front 17

Eduation of All Handicapped children (EHA)

Back 17

This is the federal law that laid the foundation of which current special education laws rests in 1975 Congress found that 1.75 million children were being excluded from receiving a public education based solely on their condition. Over 4 million of the 8 million children with disabilities were not receiving the appropriate level of eduction. Many other children were being placed in inappropriate educational settings. Because of the lack of services many families were forced to send their children far from home. It is in the national interest for the federal government to assist state and local government in providing programs that meet the educational needs of children with disabilites.

Front 18

The major provisions of EHA

Back 18

Parental consent must precede any evaluations, testing and placement. The parent must be fully informed in their native language.
All students in education must be placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
All students must have an I.E.P.

Front 19

IDEA 97 changed the law in significant was

Back 19

It strengthened the Least restrictive environment (LRE) to invlude that the iep is to indicate to which extent the student will be with non-disabled peers.
Schools must include parents to be a part of the group that determined the child's eligibility and that the concerns of the parents need to be placed in the I.E.P
It emphasized the

Front 20

Idea 97 gave school authorities several options in disciplining a student with a disability.

Back 20

Schools can suspend a child for up to ten days or change a child's educational setting as long as they also do this for regular education children

Front 21

Americans with Disabilities Act (July 1990)

Back 21

IDEA and ADA work together in different ways IDEA is more about the educational situation and ADA protects people with disabilities in the community.