Question | Answer |
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. |