There are several key court cases that have played an important role in the history of special education and children with disabilities. Many of these cases help to build the foundation for laws and regulations in todays special education system. These cases help set the foundation for which we base many decisions within the system today.
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District (1989)
Timothy W. is a child with a severe mental retardation and other disabilities. The Rochester, New Hampshire school district concluded that Timothy was so severely handicapped that he was not “capable of benefitting” from education and was therefore not entitled to district-supported services. Timothy’s parents disagreed with the school district and sued them.
The federal district court ruled that under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and under New Hampshire law, an initial determination of a child’s ability to benefit from special education must be made before the child is entitled to special education. The court also held that only those handicapped children who can benefit from special education are eligible for it and under that standard, Timothy was not eligible. Council for Timothy W. appealed the court’s decisions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and they reversed the judgment of the district court.
The decision of the circuit court concluded that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975 to ensure that all children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education that state and local educational agencies have a responsibility to provide.
The court ruled that Timothy had been wrongly denied his right to appropriate public educational services. The “zero reject” policy was reaffirmed from this decision and is the basis behind the EAHCA. Senator Williams, the principal author of EAHCA, stated that “those children with the greatest need are to be given priority for services to be provided in the absence of an education program, and second priority is to be given to those children who are receiving an inadequate education”.
*I find this case to be so important in the history of special education because it reaffirmed the rights of students with the most severe disabilities to a free and appropriate education. Education for those with severe or profound disabilities is a broad spectrum that is not limited to academic services. LINK: Education.com Timothy W. v. Rochester
Honig v. Doe (1988)
This U.S. Supreme Court case was about the acceptable limits of disciplining students with disabilities under the education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (which is now the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA)). Emotionally disturbed students “ Doe” and “Smith” had difficulty controlling their anger and impulses. They were both suspended indefinitely for violent and disruptive conductrelating to their disabilities. Doe was suspended for 5 days, and while he was up for explosion he was suspended indefinitely until the explosion proceedings were complete. Doe filed a suit against the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction alleging that the suspension and proposed expulsion violated the EHA. The Court of Appeals affirmed this with some slight modifications.
During this case, the court addressed three key issues. First, the case stated one of the plaintiffs was up for debate because he was no longer eligible under the IDEA. Second, the Court would not create a an exception affirming that its “stay-put” provisions prohibit school officials from excluding students with disabilities from school for dangerous or disruptive actions that are manifestations of their disabilities while review proceedings are under way (manifestation determinations). Third, the equally divided Court affirmed that the state official must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local boards fail to do so.
The case was sent to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of Doe.
*The biggest aspect in the outcome of this case was that it meant that "emotionally disturbed children were categorized as being disabled, and it stated that their physical or verbal outbursts did not constitute sufficient reason to bar them from attending school prior to having a hearing".
In this case the plaintiff (“Dennis Doe”) complains that he was expelled in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and in violation of the Education of the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401-1461) and the regulations under the Handicapped Act. (46 C.F.R. §§ 121a.1-121a.754). The courts held that before a school could expel a disabled student for disciplinary reasons, they must first conduct a manifestation determination to precisely determine if the student’s behavior is related to his disability. If in fact the student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability he could be expelled. The courts ruled that the student with a disability could be immediately suspended for less than ten days. The courts also held that the suspension and expulsion of disabled students is equal to a change in placement for disabled students.
*I think this case is important in the field of special education because students sometimes act as part of their disability. The case ruling acts as the "second chance" for disabled students with behavior issues.
This case was brought to court by Peter Mills on the behalf of seven school aged children with special needs. The children’s rights were being denied by the Washington D.C. Board of Education. The Board of Education claimed they were unable to be education because of their “special needs”. These students were being denied all educational rights simply because of their disabilities and were not afforded due process of law. The school districts main defense in this case was the high cost of educating children with disabilities.
The District judge ruled in favor of the students and stated that a free public education or suitable alternative education must be provided for all students regardless of their needs and regardless of the cost (all paid for by the Board of Education).
*This case stands out for doing what is 'morally right' and not just "throwing a child out" because the funds are not there to accomodate them. It protects all children with disabilities. Constitutional rights must be held to all people, regardless of their disabilities.
Not too long ago did Pennsylvania state law allow public schools to deny services to children “who have not attained a mental age of five years” by the start of first grade. The lawsuit Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the first right-to-education suit ever filed in the country. This suit overturned that Pennsylvania law and secured a quality education for all children.
In the outcome of this case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa., the state agreed to provide a free public education for children with mental retardation. The ruling in PARC was arranged on a national level as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
*I believe this case is very important in the history of special education because it brought about the standard that each child must be offered an individualized education as well as placing children in the least restrictive environment possible. LINK: Public Law Center of Pennsylvania
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
This was the first special education Supreme Court case. Amy Rowley was a deaf child who attended school in the Hendrick Hudson Central School District in New York. Her parents required that the school provide a qualified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes. The school refused to provide an interpreter. Their reasoning for failing to do so was that "Amy was achieving educationally, academically, and socially" without this assistance. The parents lost in District court to due process so they took the case on to federal courts. The parents won in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The District appealed to the Supreme Court. Amy Rowley lost the case in the Supreme Court, however, it set the standard for what is a Free Appropriate Public Education.
*I think this particular court case was one of the most important and influential cases in special education history and law. Because of this ruling, children with disabilities are provided access to public schools and a “ basic floor” of opportunity. This may not neccesarily mean the best education, but it allows an education where one can achieve passing grades in classes and can advance to higher grades. This case set forth the bases for the standard against which all services are measured.
The parents of a disabled child Brian Schaffer sued their public school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Schaffer’s parents claimed the IEP the school system devised for their son was inadequate. The district court ruled on behalf of the Schaffer’s, but the Fourth Circuit reversed that ruling, staying that the lower court incorrectly assigned the burden of proof to the school system.
The question that arises in this case is under IDEA, when parents of a disabled child and a local school district are at a deadlock over the child’s IEP, either side has a right to bring the dispute to an administrative hearing officer for resolution. Which side has the burden of proof – the parents or the school district?”
In this particular case the majority held that, “The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that part is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an administrative law judge.”
In Virginia, this case would not cause a change in due process procedures because the moving party already has the burden. Only those states that place the burden of proof on the school district will be affected by the decision in Schaffer v. Weast.
Jacob Winklemans parents had concerns over whether their 6-year-old son Jacob would show progress at his Elemenatary school. Jacob has autism spectrum disorder. After helping the school district to develoan IEP for Jacob, they conceded that his aprents had the staturory right to contribute to this process, and when an afreement could not be reached, to participate in administrative proceedings including what the Act regers to as an “impartial due process hearing” § 1415(f)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV).
-The question is this case is whether parents, on their own behalf of behalf of the child, may proceed in court unrepresented by conousel through they are not trained or licensed attorneys.
The Supreme Court decided that parents, although not licensed attorneys may pursue IDEA claims on their own behalf. These rights are independent of their child's rights.