Case Briefing #6-Andre Williams 1 Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994) 2.Facts: This case was originally presented before the district court of Colorado in 1993 on behalf of the parents of Gregory Urban, a seventeen-year-old teen with severe mental disabilities. Gregory and his parents moved to Evergreen, Colorado in 1991. The parents wanted Gregory to go to Evergreen High School but the school district placed him at Golden High School where he participated in support services for children with severe disabilities. The support services at Golden High School were not available at Evergreen High. After the development of Gregory’s IEP his parents voiced objections to what they believed constituted violations of Gregory’s right to a free and appropriate public education. These violations included placement of Gregory outside his neighborhood school and failure to stipulate transition services in his IEP. After initially participating in the IDEA administrative process the parents filed a case with the district court claiming the school district violated Gregory’s rights under IDEA and ADA. The court ruled in favor of the school district by rejecting …show more content…
This case is significant because of the courts’ strict interpretation of the law. A summary reading of IDEA would lead many parents to believe that a school must accommodate each child who is disabled by all means necessary. However, alternative placements can also be considered free appropriate pubic education. The court stated that the Urbans never argued against the quality of education Gregory received at Golden High. This is significant because if quality had been considered then FAPE could have come into play. As it stands now the court’s ruling and interpretation of the law further defines
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
The Gaskin Settlement Agreement is an agreement between a group of families and advocacy organizations who filed a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) on behalf of a group of children with disabilities in 1994. This agreement does not change a student’s placement, program, or IEP in any manner. Only the IEP team has the authority to make modifications that will impact a student’s IEP. The main goal of this settlement is to make sure that IEP teams will determine if the goals in a student’s IEP may be implemented in a general education setting with supplementary aids and services prior to considering an environment that is more restrictive in nature. The elements of this case were designed to help increase the capacity of school districts to provide related services, SDI that is appropriate, supplementary aids and services, and supports to students who have disabilities that are placed in general education classrooms. The PDE lists many important elements of the Settlement Agreement to be aware of...
"Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, ET AL. v. Pico, By His Next
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
...as, J., J. Stewart, J. White, J. Black, and J. Harlan. "Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District (No. 21)." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 24 Feb. 1969. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. .
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
Bennett, A., & Brower, A. (2001). ’THAT’S NOT WHAT FERPA SAYS!’: THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT GIVES DANGEROUS BREADTH TO FERPA IN ITS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 327.
v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, the Court held that under IDEA the school district is responsible for the education and funding of health services for all children with disabilities heedless of the extent of the disabilities. In this case, not only did Timothy have multiple disabilities, he was also severely intellectually disabled. His pediatrician maintained that Timothy was able to respond to sound and stimuli and would benefit from physical and occupational therapy. However, the school board concluded he was not “capable of benefitting” from special educational services due to the severity of his condition. In this case the Court took on an expanded view of a free and appropriate education, which included the development of fundamental cognitive, motor, and communication skills. In Jonathan’s case, the principal does not feel that the high school is an appropriate placement for Jonathan with his array of disabilities. Nonetheless, the courts have established that IDEA is not conditional upon the multiplicity or the severity of the disability. Rather, all children are entitled to an education, including fundamental developmental
There were five cases about education segregation in different regions, including Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. Board of Education of Prince Edward County (VA.), Boiling v. Sharpe, and Gebhart v. Ethel. The NAACP tested the constitutionality of education segregation in education from different regions (History - Brown v. Board of Education Re-enactment, n.d.). Chief Justice Earl Warren spoke for unanimous Court, overruling the Plessy doctrine, declaring
What are the steps to due process? What significance are the court cases Goss v. Lopez and Dixon v. Alabama in maintaining a well-ordered school?
"Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (1930-1999)(1999): N.PAG. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
.... The burden rests upon the defendants to establish that such time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. During this period of transition, the courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases
Jeannie Oakes, Kevin Welner, and Susan Yonezawa, "Mandating Equity: A Case Study of Court-Ordered Detracking in San Jose Schools." From the California Policy Seminar Brief Series, March 1998, Available online at: http://www.ucop.edu/cps/oaks.html.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was a concept that was adopted by Congress in 1975. The IDEA states that children and adults with disabilities have the right to receive free public education, just like their peers without disabilities. “IDEA provides federal funding to states to meet the education needs of children with disabilities. In exchange, states agree to comply with IDEA’s substantive and procedural requirements” (Boylan & Goldman, 2010). According to the U.S. Department of Education, IDEA reported that children with disabilities have consistently been becoming larger over the past 10 years, since 2007 the number has nearly doubled (2010). The growth in these numbers not only demonstrates the goal to identi...