Brown V Board Of Education Case Summary
Case Year Effect
Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 Inclusion 14th amendment
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972 FAPE, no cost, no deny mental retard.
Stuart vs. Nappi 1978 Student stay in school despite bad behavior
Armstrong vs. Kline 1979 Extended school year services
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley
contested IDEA and lost.
Board of Education v. Rowley 1982 Individual plan & supportive services. A program of a special child is compared to the program of a none disabled for appropriateness.
Abrahamson vs. Hershman 1983 If residential placement is required, school must provide it via district funds
Dept of Ed. vs. Katherine D 1984 Home bound is not LRE [Least Restrictive Environment], receive medical services …show more content…
School District vs. Tatro 1984 Physical and health impairments may not prevent from public school, no physician
Smith vs. Robinson 1984 School must pay for necessary residential placements
Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center 1985 Cannot zone group homes out of neighborhoods
Burlington School Committee vs. DOE 1985 District pay for private placement. Reimburse expenditure on a private school
Timothy W. vs. Rochester School 1988
1989 Zero rejection, FAPE
Honig vs. Doe 1988 Can’t exclude child for misbehavior but can be removed temporarily for emergency act.
Danny R. R. vs. State Board of Ed. 1989 LRE, FAPE means student has right, to inclusion to the maximum extent possible
Zobrest vs Catalina School District 1993 District pay services needed even when he attends a parochial school without violating separation of church and state
Florence County School District vs. Carter 1993 If schools has no appropriate services but a private school does, district may have to pay, even if they did not approve the placement and parents acted unilaterally
Board of Education in Sacramento, CA vs. Holland 1994 LRE - Four factors, including the needs of all children in the school, that must be considered for FAPE
Cases regarding Assessment
Date
Brown vs. Board of Education 1954 Inclusion 14th amendment
PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972 FAPE, no cost, no deny mental retard.
Stuart vs. Nappi 1978 Student stay in school despite bad behavior
Armstrong vs. Kline 1979 Extended school year services
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley
contested IDEA and lost.
Board of Education v. Rowley 1982 Individual plan & supportive services. A program of a special child is compared to the program of a none disabled for appropriateness.
Abrahamson vs. Hershman 1983 If residential placement is required, school must provide it via district funds
Dept of Ed. vs. Katherine D 1984 Home bound is not LRE [Least Restrictive Environment], receive medical services …show more content…
School District vs. Tatro 1984 Physical and health impairments may not prevent from public school, no physician
Smith vs. Robinson 1984 School must pay for necessary residential placements
Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center 1985 Cannot zone group homes out of neighborhoods
Burlington School Committee vs. DOE 1985 District pay for private placement. Reimburse expenditure on a private school
Timothy W. vs. Rochester School 1988
1989 Zero rejection, FAPE
Honig vs. Doe 1988 Can’t exclude child for misbehavior but can be removed temporarily for emergency act.
Danny R. R. vs. State Board of Ed. 1989 LRE, FAPE means student has right, to inclusion to the maximum extent possible
Zobrest vs Catalina School District 1993 District pay services needed even when he attends a parochial school without violating separation of church and state
Florence County School District vs. Carter 1993 If schools has no appropriate services but a private school does, district may have to pay, even if they did not approve the placement and parents acted unilaterally
Board of Education in Sacramento, CA vs. Holland 1994 LRE - Four factors, including the needs of all children in the school, that must be considered for FAPE
Cases regarding Assessment
Date