The defendant Rachel Holland was at the time a nine-year old girl with an intellectual disability with an I.Q. of 44 and an academic functioning level of a four-year old child. Rachel was described as being well behaved and popular with her second grade classmates. She enjoyed school and was motivated to learn. The plaintiff Sacramento Unified School District proposed to educate Rachel half time in a special education class, and half-time placement in a regular classroom. Rachel’s core classes such as Reading and Math services would be rendered in a special education class and classes such as PE, Music, Lunch, and Recess would be rendered in a general education classroom. Rachel’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) stressed language and communication goals such as speaking in four or five word sentences, initiating and terminating conversations, verbally stating name, developing twenty-four word sight vocabulary, counting to twenty-five, and printing first and last …show more content…
Rachel’s parent disagreed and with the Districts decision of half time special education placement and placed her in a private school in a general education classroom with supports where she was successfully meeting her IEP goals. Rachel’s parents also appealed the district’s placement decision to a California Special Education hearing officer. After fourteen days of hearing, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents and ordered the District to place Rachel in a general education classroom with support services. The District appealed the decision and the courts had to decide if the decision made by the hearing officer complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The courts ruled in favor of the defendant finding that the appropriate placement for Rachel, under the IDEA, was in a general education classroom, with supplemental services, as a full time member of
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
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...
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
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.
1868 marked a proud year for African Americans with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution. It proclaimed that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”1 This essentially color blinded government, and granted all citizens (a category which finally included African Americans) what is described in the document as indisputable equality.
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.
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
When I first received this topic and did preliminary research, it seemed more of a race issue than a juvenile issue, since it happened during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. With further research, I found that it influenced how public colleges and the juvenile justice system handle disciplinary matters. This case was a part of many cases that granted juveniles the right of due process. According to our textbook, due process is a basic constitutional law (found in the 14th amendment) focused on the belief that the individual has primacy and that governmental power should be limited to protect the individual. Due process is supposed to safeguard the individual from unfair state procedures in legal or administrative trails. Because of the case in question, due process rights have been extended to juvenile trials. Another case during this time where due process was in question was the Goldberg v. The Regents of California.
"Pickering v. Board of Education - 391 U.S. 563 (1968)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
Nappi court case went to trial in the district court. The court found that ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was Kathy Stuart. The judge explained that expulsion would reject Stuart from a free and appropriate education guaranteed to special education students in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The expulsion of handicapped children not only jeopardizes their right to an free and appropriate education, but it is also inconsistent with the procedures established by the Handicapped Act for changing the placement of disruptive children. Leagle (1985). STUART v. NAPPI (610 F.Supp. 90). Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985700610FSupp90_1677/STUART%20BY%20AND%20THROUGH%20STUART%20v.%20NAPPI. The court said that expelling students with disabilities will limit their availability to an education in the least restrictive environment. However, the court did rule that school officials could substitute an expulsion with suspension when dealing with a student who met the criteria to be covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, the court ruled that a school district could suspend a student from school for a maximum of only ten days. The court also determined that a school district could also hold a meeting to change the placement of the student if a more restrictive environment was needed. First, school authorities can take swift disciplinary measures, such as suspension, against disruptive handicapped children. Secondly, a (special education committee) can request a change in the placement of handicapped children who have demonstrated that their present placement is inappropriate by disrupting the education of other children. The Handicapped Act thereby affords schools with both short-term and long-term methods of dealing with handicapped children who are behavioral problems. Casetext (1978). STUART V. NAPPI, (D.CONN. 1978). Retrieved from
Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, now called Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requires states to provide free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for every child regardless of disability. This federal law was the first to clearly define the rights of disabled children to receive special education services if their disability affects their educational performance. A parent of a special education student also has basic rights under IDEA including the right to have their child evaluated by the school district and to be included when the school district meets about the child or makes decisions about his or her education. If a child is identified as in need of special education services, the school district must devise a written individual education program (IEP) for the child, which includes related services. An IEP is a statement of a student’s special education and related services including speech services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, counseling and assistive technology and transportation. In addition, this legally binding, individualized plan outlines reasonable educational goals for the student and is reviewed and updated yearly.