11 tables

Save to favorites
Print

Email Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Copy URL

11scotus

i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless. i am dummy text. do not copy me for i am useless.

AWAITING ORAL ARGUMENT:

• Winkelman v. Parma City School District:

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide another legal issue arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: whether nonlawyer parents may represent themselves and their children in federal court cases under the law.

The Supreme Court and Special Education

1982 Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School Districtv. Rowley:

In its first major interpretation of the 1975 law, the court held that states and districts need not provide children with disabilities the “best” education available, but that they must follow the procedures set forth in the law and provide an educational plan that is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.

1984 Irving Independent School Districtv. Tatro:

A district must provide “clean intermittent catheterization” during the school day to a child with disabilities who needs it to be able to attend school. The procedure is a required “related service” under the law, the court ruled.

1985 Burlington School Committeev. Department of Education of Massachusetts:

The court held that parents who unilaterally place their child with disabilities in a private school during a dispute over the child’s public school placement are entitled to reimbursement for tuition and expenses when the courts later determine that the parents’ placement was appropriate and the school district’s placement was inappropriate under the law.

1988 Honig v. Doe:

A school district may not suspend a violent or disruptive child with disabilities for more than 10 days without first going through the due-process procedures of the special education law, the justices ruled. Later amendments to the IDEA have set forth criteria for determining whether the disruptive behavior was a manifestation of the child’s disability.

1994 Florence County School District No. 4 v. Carter:

A court may order a school district to reimburse parents for the costs of placing a child with disabilities in a private school that provides the child an appropriate education, even when the school is not approved by the state, the high court held.

1999 Cedar Rapids Community School Districtv. Garret F.:

The justices ruled that the IDEA requires school districts to provide one-on-one nursing services to students with serious disabilities who need such care in order to attend school. The court said such care was a required “related service” under the law and not an excluded “medical service.”

2006 Schafferv. Weast:

The party seeking a dueprocess hearing under the IDEA is the one that bears the burden of proof in the case, the court held. Since most requests for due-process hearings come from parents, the ruling was considered a victory for school districts.

2006 Arlington Central School Districtv. Murphy:

The justices held that the IDEA does not authorize parents who win legal disputes over their children’s special education plans to be reimbursed for the costs of experts, such as expert witnesses or nonlawyer consultants who assist them in their dealings with districts and legal preparations.

SOURCE: Education Week

11 tables

11scotus

Events

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Read Next

11 tables

11scotus

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Events

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Read Next

Sign Up & Sign In