NCCRESt

part of the Education Reform Networks

You are in: Subject —>

Disability and Special Education

• Beth B. v. Van Clay
  HASH(0x1744a10).
• Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg By and Through Wartenberg
  HASH(0x1747370).
• Carter v. Florence County School District No. 4
  HASH(0x1a09350).
• Christopher M. v. Corpus Christi Independent School District
  The school district proposed limiting the school day of a student with profound mental retardation and physical disabilities to four hours, presumably due to physical distress resulting from prolonged sensory stimulation. While access to special education is determined without analysis of the student's ability to benefit from special education the content of the student's IEP is not.
• Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
  When a parent is examining the educational opportunities available for his handicapped child, he may be expected to focus primarily on his own child's best interest. Likewise, when state and local officials are examining the alternatives for educating a handicapped child, the child's needs are a principle concern.
• JSK By and Through JK v. Hendry County School Board
  HASH(0x1171a30).
• JSK By and Through JK v. Hendry County School Board
  HASH(0x1a25640).
• Kerkam by Kerkam v. Superintendent, D.C. Public Schools
  Parents of a student with severe mental retardation sued for reimbursement of costs for a private placement. The Circuit Court remanded for a ruling on "appropriateness" finding that the lower court had applied a "maximizing" standard in its initial opinion.
• Knable ex. Re. Knable v. Bexley City School District
  After district failed to convene an IEP meeting for student, parents unilaterally withdrew child with behavior disorder from school, enrolled in a private school and sued for reimbursement. Court held that substantive harm, resulting in a denial of a FAPE under IDEA, occurs when the procedural violations of IDEA seriously infringe upon the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP process, and procedural violations that deprive an eligible student of an individualized education program or result in the loss of educational opportunity also will constitute a denial of a FAPE.
• Legares v. Camdenton R-III School District
  HASH(0x1747370).
• Lenn v. Portland School Committee
  "The IDEA does not promise perfect solutions to the vexing problems posed by the existence of learning disabilities in children and adolescents. The Act sets more modest goals; it emphasizes an appropriate rather than ideal, education; it requires an adequate rather than optimal, IEP..
• Metropolitan Board of Public Education v. Guest
  Parents of a first-grader with autism challenged the district's proposal to change his placement from a regular kindergarten with supplementary aids and services to a special education classroom for two-thirds of the school day. An administrative law judge that Joel Guest be placed in the full inclusion program.
• O'Toole v. Olathe District Schools
  HASH(0x1746d50).
• Poolaw v. Bishop
  In the first case, the Court rejected the parents' suggestions of inadequate supplementary aids and services for their child with a severe hearing impairment. As a result, the student could be placed in a school specializing in educating students with hearing impairments.
• Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H.
  The District strenuously disagrees with the district court's findings that Rachel was receiving academic and non-academic benefits in a regular class and did not have a detrimental effect on the teacher or other students. It argues that the court's findings were contrary to the evidence of the state Diagnostic Center and that the court should not have been persuaded by the testimony of Rachel's teacher, particularly her testimony that Rachel would need only a part-time aide in the future.
• T.R. v. Kingwood Township Board of Education
  HASH(0x17440b0).
• Timothy W. v. Rochester N.H. School District
  Timothy W. is a child with complex developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, weizure disorder, and cortical blindness.
• Timothy W. v. Rochester N.H. School District
  Timothy W. is a child with complex developmental disabilities, spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, weizure disorder, and cortical blindness.
• Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District
  The IDEA does not require states to "...maximize the potential of handicapped children..." however the "door of public education must be opened in a 'meaningful' way..." "This is not done if an IEP affords only the opportunity for only 'trivial advancement'..." An appropriate education under the IDEA is one that is "likely to produce progress, not regression.".