Week 4 Vocab-cases

1. • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley-

1.1. Landmark case- definition of appropriate in FAPE. To provide an appropriate education rather than guarantee a quality of education. Was initiated by parents of a deaf student where her parents wants to provide ASL interpreter for her. (March 23, 1982). Schools must provided FAPE. Amy stayed in first grade without an interpreter. Schools don’t have to provide up and over education, they have to provide appropriate education for them.

2. • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F

2.1. School district did not want to pay for related services that some students needed to be able to attend school. March 3, 1999. Free appropriate public education. Schools are required to find care for disabled students. Based a lot on Irving vs Tatro case. Student was paralyzed and school didn’t want to provide the services for his disability.

3. • Schaffer v. Weast-

3.1. Key issues was Burden of Proof. Parents proposed that instructional plans for their children are responsible for proving why the plans are not adequate.

4. • Forest Grove School District v. T. A.-

4.1. Parents are entitled to reimbursement for private school tuition. Even if the child hasn’t received sped from a public school.

5. • Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia-

5.1. Landmark case- all idea principles, but primarily FAPE. Consent decree applied to all disabilities. Due process procedures include: the right to a hearing, the right to appeal, the right to have access to records, written notice at all stages of the process. Students were denied education because they had behavioral issues and could not afford school. (1972) Individualized education plan. Schools are required to provide free education no matter the disability.

6. • Larry P. v. Riles-

6.1. IQ tests were being used to place students in EMR classes- the majority were African Americans. (1979). Appropriate evaluation, LRE. Determined that IQ test do not accurately determine EMR class placement.

7. Chapter 6

7.1. • Attention deficit disorder-

7.1.1. students have a hard time being able to pay attention. They struggle with their attention to different things.

7.2. • Attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder-

7.2.1. Students with this disorder can have a hard time directing their cognitive thinking. They can appear to be daydreaming, or cannot be organized, seem forgetful, and skip parts of assignments. They can also have the hyperactivity that cause them to not be able to sit still. They have high amounts of movement as well as impulsivity.

7.3. • What are the academic characteristics of a student with ADHD?-

7.3.1. They experience difficulty with academic structure and demands of school. They achieve below potential. They can be gifted and talented as well as need additional help.

7.4. • What are the social and emotion characteristics of a student with ADHD?-

7.4.1. Students often find it hard to cope in social demands at school and home. They don’t notice they need to behave differently in different places. They are not accurate at judging their social abilities and overestimate them. They have a harder time building and maintaining relationships with peers.

7.5. • Briefly describe three behavior interventions that could be used for students with ADHD.

7.5.1. #1 rewards: reward appropriate behaviors, use them along with praise. #2 Low-involvment strategies: find ways to communicate with the student as soon as behavior starts. Use signals to quickly and easily get their attention and correct the behavior. #3 Token Economy: give students a token for appropriate behavior.

8. Case- Legal ruling the result of law suits. (Brown v. Board of education)

9. Education of all handicapped children act. (1975): 94-142. Guaranteed special education services. Informed consent and LRE required. Introduced the IEP. Revised in 1986 (99-457).

10. Brown vs. Board of education- Landmark case-zero reject. Basis to build disability activism. Free appropriate public education.

11. Mills vs. Board of education- Landmark case- all idea principles, but primarily FAPE. Consent decree applied to all disabilities. Due process procedures include: the right to a hearing, the right to appeal, the right to have access to records, written notice at all stages of the process.

12. Daniel RR v Texas State Board of Ed.- Landmark case- Definition of LRE. Precedent cases, Lachman, ronker, and holland. Gave two prongs for determining LRE. #1 Whether the student can be placed in regular education and satisfy achievement with supplementary aides or services. 3 considerations. Has district made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child? Evaluate benefits available to child in regular classroom with aides. Possible negative effects of inclusion. Cost of supplementary aides and services. #2 Has the district included the child to the max extent possible in regular classroom. This comes into effect if district is found justified in removing a child from regular education.

13. • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro-

13.1. The key issue was Related services. Health services that are necessary for a student to benefit from sped are considered related services, if they can be done by a nonphysician.

14. • Honig v. Doe

14.1. Key issue was discipline, students have to stay put during court proceedings or administrative. They cannot be excluded for misbehavior related to disability. If a student is excluded from school for over 10 days, there has to be a change of placement.

15. • Winkelman v. Parma City School District- Parents

15.1. Parents who have a disabled child are able to pursue their case in court without an attorney. They have the personal right under IDEA for their children to be educated appropriately.

16. • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-

16.1. State law was questioned for not allowing students with a minimum mental age the opportunity to go to school. (1971). Free appropriate education, individualized education plan, LRE. District was required to provide all children access to education and programs. Community sued the state. States are required to give a free education to all children. It was the first huge landmark case.

17. • Diana v. California State Board of Education-

17.1. because of a misuse of IQ test a Spanish student was place in sped for low IQ test scores. (1970). Appropriate evaluation, LRE. Spanish students must be tested in Spanish for fair placement.

18. Statutory Law: Laws made by congress. Congressional process: creation of law Proposals and hearings.

19. Regulatory Law- regulations added to statutory laws.

20. 504 of the Rehab. Act 1973. Called 504. Applies to all people, requires an accommodation plan. Incorporated into 94-142 and later revisions.

21. Individuals with disabilities education act: revised in 1989 to become IDEA. New categories: autism and TBI.

22. PARC vs Pennsylvania (1971)- landmark case- all IDEA principles but primarily due process. Parents institutionalized a child and the 12 year old was transferred to another institution without notifying parents. Due process procedures resulted. State cannot deny education to children with mental retardation. Consent required. Did not become case law.

23. Landmark cases – Definition of non-discriminatory assessment- many cases, key principle disproportionate placement.

24. IDEA six principles: zero reject, non-discriminatory evaluation, free and appropriate education (FAPE), Least resticive environment (LRE), Procedural due process, parent and student invovlemtn.