POLICIES, PRACTICES AND PROGRAMS Flashcards
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 1954
Educational segregation Segregation of students by race ruled unconstitutional.
Diana v. State Board of Education 1970
Class placement Linguistically different students must be tested in their primary language as well as English.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972
Right to Education
State must guarantee a free public education to all children with intellectual disability ages 6–21 regardless of degree of impairment or associated disabilities.
Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia 1972
Right to education Extended the Pennsylvania decision to include all children with disabilities. Specifically established the constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to a public education regardless of their functional level.
Lau v. Nichols 1974
Equal educational opportunity A milestone case in the field of bilingual education. U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted that “there is not equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education.” Decision significantly affected the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners.
Larry P. v. Riles 1979
Class placement Landmark case parallel to the Diana suit. African American students could not be placed in classes for children with mild intellectual disability solely on the basis of intellectual assessments found to be culturally and racially biased. Ruling applies only to the state of California.
Armstrong v. Kline 1980
Extended school year State’s refusal to pay for schooling in excess of 180 days for pupils with severe disabilities is a violation of their rights to an appropriate education as required by PL 94-142 (IDEA).
Tatro v. State of Texas 1980
Related services U.S. Supreme Court held that catheterization qualified as a related service under PL 94-142 (IDEA).
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 1982
Appropriate education First U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of PL 94-142 (IDEA).
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
1989
Class placement Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a segregated class was an appropriate placement for a student with Down syndrome. Preference for integrated placement viewed as secondary to the need for an appropriate education.
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999
Related services U.S. Supreme Court expanded and clarified the concept of related services.
IDEA revision 1986 PL 99-457
Legislation viewed as a downward extension of PL 94-142
Mandated services for preschoolers with disabilities, ages 3–5
Permissive early intervention services for infants and toddlers, from birth through age 2, with developmental delays or disabilities
Individualized family service plan (IFSP) established for infants and toddlers
“Developmentally delayed” category created
IDEA revision 1990 PL 101-476
Name of legislation changed to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Autism and traumatic brain injury identified as discrete disability categories
Rehabilitation counseling and social work considered related services
Established the requirement of an individualized transition plan (ITP) by age 16
States’ immunity from lawsuits for violating IDEA repealed
IDEA revision 1997 PL 105-17
Students with disabilities required to participate in state- and districtwide assessments
Transition planning commences at age 14
Orientation and mobility included as a related service
Discretionary use of “developmentally delay” label for pupils ages 3–9
General educators required to participate on IEP team
Students with disabilities are to be involved in and have access to general education curriculum
Mediation offered as a means of resolving disputes
Benchmarks and measurable annual goals emphasized
Pupils who violate student code of conduct may be removed from their current educational placement only after a due process hearing
Assistive technology needs of each learner must be assessed
Students expelled or suspended from school are still entitled to receive services in accordance with their IEP
Greater variety of assessment tools and strategies are permissible for initial evaluations and reevaluations
