Busy. Please wait.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

show password


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.

By signing up, I agree to StudyStack's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the email address associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know (0)
Know (0)
remaining cards (0)
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards

Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Stack #142681

Court Cases related to Special Education

Brown v Board of Education (1954) Established the right to an equal educational opportunity based upon the 14th Admendment.
PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) Established that students with mental retardation have the right to an appropriate education. Required districts to place all children with mental retardation in a "free public program of education and training appropriate to the child's capacity"
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) Established that the state must engate in extensive efforts to locate and evaluate all students with mental retardation.
Mills v D.C. Board of Education (1972) Established that children with disabilities other than mental retardation have the right to an appropriate education, regardless of the degree of mental, physical, or emotinal disability.
Larry P. v. Riles (1974) Established that using intelligence tests as the sole basis for diagnosing mental retardation for placement in special education classes is inappropriate.
Allen v McDonough (1976) Established that appropriate education for children with disabilities consisted of timely and sufficient evaluation, individualized programs, and reviews of the programs.
Frederick L. v. Thomas (1976) Established that students with learning disabilities should be provided with an appropriate education. Established that screening and evaluation procedures be designed and implemented to identify students with learning disabilities.
Lora v. New York City Board of Education (1978) Established that evaluation procedures for entrence into special education classes or schools should not biolate the student's right to treatment and due process.
Stuart v. Nappi (1978) Established that a school may not expel a studnet with a disability without providing an apporpriate alternative program.
New York State Assoication for Retarded Children Inc. et al. v. Carey et al. (1979) Established that segregation of students with mental retardation carrying hep. B within the public schools constituted unlawful discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act becuase unhandicapped student carriers are not similarly restricted.
PASE (Parents in Action in Special Eduation) v. Hannon (1980) Established that the use of standardized intelligence tests are valid when used in multifaceted, multidisciplinary evaluations.
Battle v. Commonwealth (1980) Established that the denial of a free public education for all students with disabilities would violate the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
S-I v. Turlington (1981) Established that schools must determine if a student's misconduct is handicap-related. If so any disciplinary action that would result in a change of placement must be conducted on the review procedures of P.L. 94-142.
Mattie T. v. Holladay (1981) Established that the state goal of providing an appropriate education for children wiht disabilities should be met in the least restrictive environment possible.
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) Established that an "appropriate" education is found when a program of speical educaiton and related services is comparable to that given to a child without disabilities.
Irving Independent School District v. Tarto (1984) Established that catheterization is a "related service" when it is simple to provide and medical assistance is not necessary to provide it.
Smith v. Robinson (1984) Restricted recovery of legal fees incurred in due process hearings.
Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts (1985) If publis school program is regected by parents as inappopriate then the public shcool must reinburse for private school tuition.
Honig v. Doe (1988) Schools can not unilaterally exclude students with disabilities for dangerous or disruptive behaviors without due process procedures. In drastic situation can be suspended for up to 10 days.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989) For some students a general education environment (mainstreaming) is NOT an appropriate education.
K. R. v. Anderson Community School Corp. (1997) Parochial school studnets must recieve some IDEA services but not the full range that they would revieve in a public school.
Lewisville Independent SD v. Charles W. ect. (2003) IEP must be individualized and address all specific needs of the student.
Created by: kmcphers