NCCRESt

part of the Education Reform Networks

You are in: Subject —>

Least Restrictive Environment

• 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.
• Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education
  Loudoun County contends that the Hartmanns do not present a valid case or controversy because Mark is currently in an educational placement which the Hartmanns find appropriate. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, this conclusion is not correct.
• Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education
  Loudoun County contends that the Hartmanns do not present a valid case or controversy because Mark is currently in an educational placement which the Hartmanns find appropriate. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, this conclusion is not correct.
• 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.
• 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.
• Roncker v. Walter
  A case in Ohio where parents asked for their child, a student who was segregated on the basis of a low I.Q., to have interactions with typical peers occur for speech and behavior models - because of segregation this could not happen. .
• 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(0x8cb57c8).