From your readings, keep a notebook of at least 10 important court cases that you believe are relevant to your current teaching situation. Court cases can be found listed within each chapter. For each court case include the following:
Name of the court case
Problem or issues behind the court case
Results of the court case
Relevance to your teaching situation
Each of the 10 items should be comprehensive enough so that you can refer back to them in the years to come and have a clear understanding of the court case.
please follow the example i have given. I need just the basic assignment completed. No need to be formal. I am just on a deadline to get it done.
EXAMPLE: of what the assignment should look like when done. Joshua McDonald SPOL 638 Court Case Notebook COURT CASE #1 Name of the court case Mills v. Board of Education (1972) Problem or issues behind the court case Parents and guardians of seven children with a variety of disabilities, including behavior problems, hyperactivity, epilepsy, mental retardation, and physical impairments brought this suit on behalf of all students with disabilities. The suit argued that more than 18,000 students in Washington D.C. had been denied public education without due process of law based upon the 14th amendment. Results of the court case The court ruled that because segregation in public education on the basis of race was unconstitutional, the total exclusion of students with disabilities was also unconstitutional. The court outlined due process procedures that became the framework for the due process component of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). Relevance to your teaching situation Brown v Board of Education opened the door to this case. The procedural safeguards are there for a reason and they help to protect all students including those with disabilities. Instead of complaining about difficult students this can serve as a personal reminder that every student has a right to a FAPE. COURT CASE #2 Name of the court case Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v Pennsylvania, 1972 Problem or issues behind the court case The state was delaying or denying students with disabilities a free public education and therefore violating the students’ rights under the equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th Amendment. Results of the court case PARC was resolved by consent agreement specifying that all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 must be provided a free public education and that it was most desirable to educate children with mental retardation in a program most like the programs provided for their peers without disabilities. Relevance to your teaching situation This sounds very much like an early step toward inclusion. I thought it was interesting that the case explains that education is not restricted to academic endeavors. I have found myself wondering on more than one occasion why some students were even in school due to the extreme nature of their disability. I know that this is a very narrow view of all the benefits of attending public school and it would do me good to remember that when working with students in a classroom. Not that I would ever limit myself to only academics, but it is good to keep in mind that I am teaching many other things besides the curriculum. COURT CASE #3 Name of the court case Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1 (1994) Problem or issues behind the court case The disputes in this case revolve around where Gregory will receive his education and training which are designed to assist him in acquiring skills to live independently. The Defendant contends that his educational placement at Golden High School (in the nearby community of Golden) is appropriate, while his parents argue that he should receive all elements of his educational and training services in the community in which his family lives Evergreen, Colorado. Results of the court case One of the few courts to address the relationship between the IDEA and the ADA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ruled in Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1 (1994) that the placement rights of a student with disabilities are no greater under the ADA than under the IDEA. Congress believed substantive rights of students with disabilities to be adequately protected under the IDEA and Section 504. This does not mean, however, that public education is unaffected by the ADA. Areas of public education that are affected include employment, general nondiscrimination (which parallels the requirements of Section 504), communications, and program accessibility. Additionally, an important area of difference between Section 504, the IDEA, and the ADA is that the ADA applies to private schools. Relevance to your teaching situation The biggest take away for me is to know that when the protections of IDEA and Section 504 end as the students move out of school and into the workforce the students are not completely vulnerable. They still have protections under ADA and therefore the best thing I can do for my students is to make them aware of this protection and educate them on how they can use self-advocacy under ADA. COURT CASE #4 Name of the court case Name of the court case Clevenger v. Oak Ridge School Board, 1984 Problem or issues behind the court case The issue in this case is whether the Oak Ridge School Board's recommendation to place Harold Richard Clevenger in the Lakeshore Mental Health Institute (Lakeshore) satisfies the requirement that it provide a "free appropriate public education" to a child handicapped within the meaning of the Education For All Handicapped Children Act. Results of the court case The complaint by Clevenger’s mother was dismissed because the court found that the placement met all the needs and requirements of a free appropriate public education. Relevance to your teaching situation The cost of placement in this residential facility was not under consideration. The only time cost should be considered is if there is more than one suitable option. This is difficult for me to grasp with all the financial challenges facing public schools, low teacher pay, and school budgets – how can a school write a blank check, no matter the cost, for special education services to ensure a FAPE? This was just a tiny part of the text and I had to look up the actual issue behind the case, but this is one I wanted to include to reference when assistive technology or other high dollar accommodations are needed. COURT CASE #5 Name of the court case Drobnicki by Drobnicki v. Poway Unified School District, 2009 Problem or issues behind the court case Parents were not included in the IEP meetings and therefore the parents held that their child was denied a FAPE. Results of the court case The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that school district personnel’s lack of efforts to include a student’s parents in an IEP meeting amounted to a denial of a FAPE. Relevance to your teaching situation Do whatever it takes to schedule IEP meetings so that parents can participate as they are a vital part of the IEP team. Parents should be involved in all aspects of their child’s education from assessment and special education identification to programming and placement. However, with both parents working in the majority of families today this could prove to be quite challenging. COURT CASE #6 Name of the court case Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 1982 Problem or issues behind the court case As required by law, Amy’s IEP was developed prior to her entry into first grade. Amy’s IEP called for her to be educated in a general education classroom and continue the use of her hearing aid. Amy also received instruction from a tutor for an hour daily and speech therapy for 3 hours a week. The Rowleys also requested a qualified sign language interpreter in all of Amy’s academic classes. Because Amy’s kindergarten interpreter believed that Amy did not need the services at that time, school officials decided that an interpreter was not needed. Results of the court case In his majority opinion Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that a FAPE consisted of educational instruction designed to meet the unique needs of a student with disabilities, supported by such services as needed to permit the student to benefit from instruction. The Court noted that the IDEA required that these educational services be provided at public expense, meet state standards, and comport with the student’s IEP. If the special education program allowed a child to benefit from educational services and was provided in conformity with the IEP and other requirements of the IDEA, the student was receiving a FAPE. Justice Rehnquist also wrote that any substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded students with disabilities was conspicuously missing from the language of the IDEA. Relevance to your teaching situation The Rowley Standard is a litmus test of sorts to make sure that a student I’m working with is receiving a FAPE. That student is not entitled to the best of the best as long as he or she is receiving educational benefits. It seems to be that this goes back to the IEP. Had Amy Rowley not been successful in class and not progressing then a new IEP meeting could have been held and an interpreter added to her services. When creating IEPs, it will be important to make sure that everyone is on board with the plan and the plan does not have to be one that gives students even more of an advantage or better than what would be considered an appropriate education. COURT CASE #7 Name of the court case Roncker v. Walter, 1983 Problem or issues behind the court case The case involved Neill Roncker, a 9-year-old classified as having moderate mental retardation. School personnel believed that the most appropriate placement for Neill was in a special school for children with disabilities. The parents objected, stating that their child would benefit from contact with his peers in a general education setting, and brought suit against the school district challenging the placement. Results of the court case Although the court noted the importance of balancing the benefits of segregated special education services against the benefits of mainstreaming, the Roncker decision is best known for what has been referred to as the Roncker portability test (Huefner & Herr, 2012): In a case where the segregated facility is considered superior, the court should determine whether the services which make that placement superior could feasibly be provided in a nonsegregated setting. If they can, the placement in the segregated school would be inappropriate under the Act. Relevance to your teaching situation The Least Restrictive Environment is one of the toughest concepts for me. This case is quite helpful in finding what that placement will be. When considering a segregated placement, I need to consider whether those services could be provided in a setting that is more fully integrated. While at the same time, this does not mean complete mainstreaming. A student could be in a special education room and join the general ed class at different points for social and other development needs. COURT CASE #8 Name of the court case Hayes v. Unified School District No. 377, 1987 Problem or issues behind the court case The teacher used a system of written warnings to allow the students time to alter their behavior to escape timeout. If the students received three warnings, they were placed in a timeout room. The parents believed that this violated their child’s right to a FAPE. Results of the court case The court ruled that the teacher had used timeout to ensure the safety of others, protect the educational environment from disruptive behavior, and teach the