Special Education Law 503
Legal Brief Library
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka
Comment [KG1]: Foundation case for all cases on special education to follow, including those being heard in courts today! 347 U.S. 483
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. * No. 1.
Argued December 9, 1952. Reargued December 8, 1953.
Decided May 17, 1954.
FACTS:
Oliver Brown was the father of Linda Brown, trying to enroll his daughter along with and
thirteen other parents, in the local "white schools" in the summer of 1950. They were rejected
because they were African Americans. They were only allowed to attend schools for other
African Americans. Oliver Brown went to the NAACP for assistance and he and the other
parents filed suit against the Topeka Board of Education for their children. Being that Oliver
Brown was the first parent listed in the lawsuit, the case was named after him.
DECISION:
The state court ruled the state was upholding the law which requires "separate but equal"
segregated facilities for blacks and whites”. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court,
but the court was unable to make a decision and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953. They gave
special attention the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, prohibiting the operation
of separate public schools for whites and blacks. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Linda
Brown and the other African American children, finding that segregation of black students was
unjust and unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
Segregation of African-American children of equal public education.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor non-segregated schools for African Americans and of equal
opportunity in education for all students regardless of their race.
ANALYSIS:
The practice of segregating schools was damaging to the educational opportunities to minorities,
and a violation to African American students’ constitutional rights under the Equal Protection
Claus of the 14th Amendment in which separate facilities are inherently unequal. Education in
public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
United States Supreme Court combined with cases from Delaware, Virginia and South Carolina.
Opinion:
This case was very significant in that it changed and initiated many other laws in for equal
educational opportunities. This includes the rights of those with disabilities.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
458 U.S. 176; 102 S. Ct. 3034
United States Court of Appeals for The Second Circuit
June 28, 1982
FACTS:
Amy Rowley was a deaf student enrolled at Furnace Woods School. The year before, her
parents and the school had held a meeting to determine what supplemental services would be
necessary for her education.
After her kindergarten year, an IEP was prepared for Amy. The
IEP provided that Amy would remain in the regular classroom and would be provided with
hearing aid and, additionally, she would receive instruction from a tutor for one hour a day and
from a speech therapist for three hours per week outside of the classroom. Amy’s parents
objected to portions of the IEP, requesting that the school provide Amy with a sign language
interpreter instead of the other forms of assistance. The school refused the request, stating that
Amy did not need an interpreter in the classroom.
The Rowleys appealed the decision to the
New York Commissioner of Education.
DECISION:
The hearing officer agreed with the school district that an interpreter was not required by IDEA.
Amy’s parents then sued in the federal court. The court ruled that that Amy was being denied the
opportunity to achieve her potential and denied FAPE. The school district then appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court affirmed the ruling. The school district again
appealed, but this time to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court developed the Rowley test by
determining two factors; if the school was in compliance with the procedures of the Act and if
the IEP was reasonably developed and calculated so that the child could receive educational
benefits. The court had held that the school district had been in compliance with the procedures
of IDEA and that Amy was offered FAPE.
ISSUES:
Amy’s parents felt that the school was not proving Amy with FAPE to reach her maximum
potential. The school district felt that they were in compliance with IDEA, offering Amy means
of special education services.
HOLDING:
The Rowleys wanted Amy to have a sign language interpreter with her in the classroom, and by
not doing so, accused the school district of not being in compliance with IDEA, thus not
allowing Amy FAPE. The ruling was in favor of the school district.
ANALYSIS:
The court’s decision was based on the Rowley test. The test determined that the school district
had met the requirements of IDEA and that the Amy’s IEP provided educational benefits. The
ruling also stated that students did not have the right to the best, maximum education, but rather
to an education that is reasonable for achievement. The school district offered Amy services
where she could be successful, however Amy’s parents wanted more. The need of an interpreter
was not necessary in the success of Amy’s education.
The school district followed all
procedures by IDEA and offered Amy a FAPE, therefore, the court concluded that Amy had
been provided the appropriate services by law.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
The courts of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District and its jurisdiction.
Opinion:
As it is commendable that parents want the best for their children, the law states that as with this
case, when the school district offers means of support to individuals with disabilities, the
supports are to be those that allow for progress for the student; the supports offered are not
required to be the supports to the unnecessary extreme.
Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Holland
14 F.3d 1398
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued August 12, 1993.
Decided January 24, 1994.
FACTS:
Rachel Holland, was an 11-year girl with moderate mental retardation. She attended a variety of
special education programs in the District from 1985-89. Rachel’s parents requested that she be
placed into a general education classroom setting. The District rejected their request and
proposed a placement that would have divided Rachel's time between a special education class
for academic subjects and a regular class for non-academic activities such as art, music, lunch,
and recess. The parents requested a due process hearing.
DECISION:
The hearing officer concluded that the school district failed to make an adequate effort to educate
Rachel in the general education classroom pursuant to the IDEA. The District contended Rachel
was too severely disabled to benefit from full-time placement in a regular class, thus appealing
the decision to the district court. The courts applied a four-part factor test to determine their
decision. The first factor considered that the court noted that the school district had made efforts
in the general education setting for supplementary aides and services. The court held that the
district failed to establish that the educational benefits of the special education classroom were
better than the benefits of the general educational classroom.
The second factor regards the nonacademic benefits of the general education class setting. The
court believed that Rachel was developing social and communication skills. The third factor
Comment [KG2]: A foundation case for the placements of student s in the general education classroom. I am unsure why schools choose not to use the Holland 4‐prong test when deciding on LRE. Seems like a no brainer to me! considered by the court was in which the negative effects the student’s presence, may have on
the teacher and other students in the general education environment. The court decided that
Rachel’s presence in the classroom was not disruptive and did not interfere with teaching or her
classmates learning. The final factor involved the cost of placement in the general education
classroom. The court determined that the district did not offer enough evidence that the cost of
placing Rachel in the general education classroom would be far more expensive than the
combined general education and special education placement. The ruling of the court concluded
to place Rachel in a regular classroom with support services, including a special education
consultant and a part-time aide.
The district made an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The court affirmed the decision of the hearing
officer that Rachel should be placed full-time in a regular classroom.
ISSUES:
Rachel’s parents felt that the school district was violating IDEA requirements by not allowing
Rachel be educated with non disabled peers in the mainstream classroom.
HOLDING:
The Holland’s stated that Rachel had the right to be educated with non-disabled peers in the
general education classroom, and after examination of the determining four factors, the court
agreed.
ANALYSIS:
The court ruled that the Sacramento Unified school district was not in compliance with IDEA
and that Rachel should be placed in the mainstream school setting to receive the same general
education as non-disabled peers. This decision was based on the Rachel H. four factor test. It
had been concluded that (1) the educational benefits available to Rachel in a regular classroom,
supplemented with appropriate aids and services, as compared with the educational benefits of a
special education classroom; (2) interaction with children who were not disabled was beneficial
to Rachel; (3) there was no negative effect on the teacher and other children in the classroom by
Rachel’s presence; and (4) the cost of mainstreaming Rachel in a regular classroom was
acceptable.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
Courts within the Sacramento City Unified School District jurisdiction.
Opinion:
Based on all of the factors, Rachel should not be segregated from the mainstream school setting.
It is beneficial for her to receive her education in a regular classroom with special education
support.
Hartmann v. Loudon County Board of Education
118 F.3d. 996 4th Cir.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Argued: May 9, 1997
Decided: July 8, 1997
FACTS:
Mark Hartmann was an 11 year old child with autism. Based on his IEP’s Mark was placed in
the general education classroom. Mark was assigned many specialists to assist him however, the
IEP team determined that he was not making any academic or behavioral progress. The team
therefore proposed to place Mark in a class specifically structured for autistic children. The
Hartmanns refused to approve the IEP, claiming that it violated the mainstreaming provision of
the IDEA, which states that "to the maximum extent appropriate," disabled children should be
educated with children who are not handicapped. The school district initiated a due process
hearing.
DECISION:
The due process hearing supported the IEP.
The Hartmanns then challenged the hearing
officer’s decision in federal court. The district court reversed the hearing officer’s decision.
They believed that Mark could benefit in a regular classroom setting and that the Board simply
did not take accurate steps to include Mark in the general education classroom. The school
district then appealed.
The court reversed the district court’s ruling, affirming that
mainstreaming was not appropriate for Mark and that the school district was in compliance with
IDEA.
ISSUES:
The Hartmann’s felt that their son should remain in the general education classroom, and that the
school was violating the mainstreaming provision of IDEA.
HOLDING:
The Hartmann’s appealed the school’s IEP proposal for Mark to be removed from the general
education classroom. The ruling held that Mark was not benefiting from the general education
classroom, and ruled in favor of the school district.
ANALYSIS:
According to Mark’s IEP, the school wanted to remove him from the general education
classroom because of his extreme behavioral problems in the classroom. His parents disagreed
and filed suit. The final ruling was made in favor of the school district, by applying the
Hartmann Three-Part Test which regarded that is not required when; a)a student with a disability
does not benefit from general education class, b)the students benefits are outweighed by a
separate instructional setting, and c)the student is disruptive to the general education classroom.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
Courts of the Loudoun County School District and its jurisdiction
Opinion: It logical for a student to be removed from the general education classroom if they are
a great disturbance and possible threat to the class. To me, it is incomprehensible for parents to
not understand that their child needs alternative placement for the better of others and their child.
FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DIST. v. T. A.
523 F. 3d 1078
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued April 28, 2009
Decided June 22, 2009
FACTS:
T.A. was a student who always struggled in school. When he reached the high school, his
parents had a private psychologist evaluate him. The psychologist diagnosed T.A. with ADHD
and learning and memory disabilities. His parents enrolled him in a private school, notified the
school district and then requested an administrative hearing on his eligibility for specialeducation services. The school district evaluated T.A. and found that his ADHD did not have a
significant effect on his education; therefore he was not eligible for special education services
and was declined an IEP.
DECISION:
The hearing officer concluded that the School District had failed to identify T.A. as eligible for
special education services and provide him with a FAPE, “free appropriate public education” as
required by IDEA. The hearing officer also found that T.A.’s private-school placement was
appropriate, and ordered the School District to reimburse his parents for his private-school
tuition. The school district then appealed, and the District Court held that if a student didn’t
previously receive special education services, that under IDEA, reimbursement was prevented
for those students.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the district’s court
decision, stating that T.A.’s parents were indeed eligible for “appropriate” tuition
reimbursement. The Supreme Court also established that IDEA does not bar students from
tuition reimbursement if they have not previously received special education services.
ISSUES:
T.A. was not granted FAPE and his parents should be reimbursed for private school tuition even
though T.A. had not previously received special education services.
HOLDING:
T.A.’s parents felt that T.A. should be eligible for education services and enrolled him in a
private school. The school district disagreed however, the court ruled that the school district did
not provide FAPE for T.A. and also ruled that they reimburse T.A.’s parents for the private
school tuition.
ANALYSIS:
The school district failed to provide T.A. an IEP and with FAPE, therefore the private-school
placement was appropriate. T.A.’s parents were to be reimbursed for the cost of private-school
tuition because under IDEA, reimbursement for private special-education services must be
provided when a public school fails to provide a FAPE regardless of whether the child
previously received special-education services through the public school.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
Courts within the Forest Grove School District and its jurisdiction
OPINION:
In this case, it seems that the school had unnoticed T.A’s educational needs. They were at fault
to not attempt to draft an IEP to establish if they could better T.A.’s situations at school.
Florence County School District IV v. Shannon Carter
Comment [KG3]: I met Shannon’s parents at a conference many years ago. They said they continued to be amazed at the impact their case has had and continues to have regarding children with special medical needs! They were fascinating to talk to! No. 91-1523
Court of appeals for the fourth circuit
Argued October 6, 1993
Decided November 9, 1993
FACTS:
Shannon Carter was a high school student with a learning disability and ADD. Her parents
requested that she be placed in a self-contained classroom in a neighboring school district. The
school did not have a self-contained setting and suggested that Shannon receive instruction in the
resource room from a special education teacher. The parents refused and requested a due process
hearing.
DECISION:
The hearing officer favored with the school district, so the Carters removed Shannon from the
public school and placed her in a private school. They then filed another appeal. The decision of
the hearing officer was again in favor of the school district. The Carters then filed suit in the
federal district court. The court found that the school districts’ program was inadequate for
Shannon and ordered the school district to reimburse the Carters for the expenses of the private
school. The school district then appealed the decision. The court decided that even though the
private school was not an approved school of the state, that the school district was still
responsible for reimbursement. The school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
court affirmed the circuit courts decision.
They stated that the school district was not in
compliance with the law of IDEA. The parents were due reimbursement of the private school
because the school district failed to offer an appropriate education for students with disabilities.
ISSUES:
The parents of Shannon found that the school district was not in compliance with IDEA and
could not offer Shannon the resources that she needed in their school district.
HOLDING:
The court ruled that the school district was to reimburse the Carters for Shannon’s private school
expenses. The school district continued to appeal these findings, asserting that special services
were offered to Shannon, and that the private school that the Carters selected was not on the
state’s list of approved special education schools. The court ruled in favor of the Carters.
ANALYSIS:
Shannon’s parents claimed that the school district had failed to provide a "free appropriate public
education" as required by IDEA. They decided to place Shannon in a private school and
demanded reimbursement for Shannon's education. The school district argued that the private
school did not meet all of the state requirements, and that reimbursement was not required. The
court found that the school district was not in compliance with IDEA and could not give
Shannon FAPE because they were unable to provide her with appropriate education and services.
Therefore, the school district was required to reimburse for the expenses of the private school.
SCOPE OF HOLDING:
The courts of Florence County School District and its jurisdiction
Opinion: School districts should have placement for all students within the district, especially
for those with disabilities, eliminating non compliance of IDEA.
Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education
471 U.S. 359
The Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 26, 1985
Decided April 29, 1985
FACTS:
Michael Panico was a third grader with learning disabilities and emotional problems. Michael’s
father had an evaluation of son, because of his lack of educational progress. The evaluation
stated that Michael should be placed in a private school for students with learning disabilities.
The school district offered placement in a highly structured class in the school district, however
Michael’s father withdrew him and placed him a state approved facility. Several hearings were
held. The state board of appeals found that public school was inappropriate for Michael and
ordered the school board to reimburse Michael’s parents for expenses of the private school. The
school district filed a law suit in the federal district court.
DICISION:
During the case, the school district agreed to pay for the private school expenses, but not to
reimburse the parents. The court ruled in favor of the school district. Michael’s father appealed
the decision. The court of appeals reversed the hearing. The school district appealed with the
Supreme Court, stating that the parents had violated the stay-put rule, which required that
students remain in their current placement during the review process. The court deemed that the
parents were not required to bear the costs of providing their child with disabilities an
appropriate education.
reimbursement.
ISSUES:
The decision was held for the school district to award tuition
The parents of Michael found that the school district was unable to find appropriate placement
for their son, and placed him in a private school, requesting reimbursement for the expenses.
The school district felt that the parents unrightfully removed Michael from the school during the
stay-put provision, and felt that they were in accordance with the IDEA regulation and refused to
reimburse Michael’s parents.
HOLDING:
It was ruled that the school district did not provide appropriate placement for Michael and was
deemed liable for private school tuition expenses and reimbursement.
ANALYSIS:
Through a private evaluation, it was found that Michael required private school placement for
students with disabilities. The school district was unable to comply with the evaluation, so the
parents removed him from the school and placed Michael in a private school, requesting
reimbursement expenses.
The school district refused stating that they had proposed an
appropriate IEP. The ruling gave the parent a right to reimbursement of private school
tuition. The School District’s offer didn’t meet the definition of FAPE, therefore they were
found responsible of settlement.
SCOPE OF HOLDING:
The courts of Burlington Massachusetts School District and its jurisdiction.
Opinion: This was another case that demonstrates appropriate education for students with
disabilities.
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
468 U.S. 883
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Argued April 16, 1984
Decided July 5, 1984
FACTS:
Amber Tatro was an 8 year old with spina bifida. She was in need of clean intermittent
catheterization (CIC) every 3 to 4 hours. The school district refused to provide Amber her CIC
services. Amber’s parents unsuccessfully pursued a due process ruling to have the school
provide training for this service. They then brought the action to federal district court.
DECISION:
The ruling was in favor with the school district stating that CIC was not mandated by IDEA.
The Tatros filed an appeal with the U.S. court of appeals for the fifth circuit. The decision of the
district court was reversed stating that CIC was a supportive service, not medical. The school
district then appealed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that CIC was a
necessary service that was within the parameters of IDEA.
ISSUES:
The issue with this case is whether the school district was required to provide CIC services to
Amber under IDEA. It questioned whether the service had to be provided by a physician, or a
service that could be performed by a qualified person.
HOLDING:
The school district felt that CIC was not a service that they were responsible for and deemed that
it was a medical service which excluded Amber from the related services mandate.
ANALYSIS:
Amber Tatro had cerebral palsy and needed to be catheterized every few hours. While the
District agreed to provide special education they refused to do the cleaning necessary for Amber
to attend school. The ruling held that the District must provide all supportive services necessary
unless a physician is needed to provide the service. Since a nurse could provide the service
needed for Amber, the school district was held responsible. The CIC service was necessary for
Amber to attend school and without it, she would not be eligible for her special education
services.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
The courts of Irving Independent School District and its jurisdictions.
Opinion: Through this case, the “bright-line test” was adopted, establishing the criteria of
whether services provided were the responsibility of the school district. If services needed to be
rendered by a physician, the school district was not held responsible. However, if the services
could be rendered by a qualified person, (even if the service was medical), the school district was
held responsible for providing the service.
Cole v. Greenfield-Central Community Schools
No. IP 83-681-C.
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
December 5, 1986.
FACTS:
Christopher Bruce Cole was an elementary school student diagnosed as emotionally disturbed.
The school had put forth many efforts and procedures in attempting to control his behavior.
Included in these procedures were time-out, response cost, and corporal punishment.
The
plaintiff sued the school stating that the school was in violation of Christopher’s civil rights.
DECISION:
The court ruled that Christopher’s disability was covered by IDEA, but that he was not exempt
from disciplinary action by the school’s procedures. The court held for the school district.
ISSUES:
The issue in the case was that the school district’s behavioral procedures were not in compliance
with IDEA.
HOLDING:
The school made several attempts to control Christopher’s disruptive behavior and was sued for
violating his civil rights. The ruling was for the school district.
ANALYSIS:
Comment [KG4]: When the schools follow the mandate of the law, they usually win. Keep your paperwork together and just do the right thing…most often with those things on your side, you come out the victor in court. Christopher had severe behavioral problems resulting in punishment from the school. The
school district was then sued for violating his civil rights. The court found in favor of the school
district. The court determined reasonable disciplinary procedures by analyzing the following
four elements: 1) if the teacher has authority under state and local laws to discipline the student,
2) if that rule was under violation, 3) if the rule violator was the one who disciplined, 4) if the
discipline fit the gravity of the offence. The court found that all four elements were reasonable.
Indiana common and statutory law grants school officials the general authority to impose
corporal punishment upon students within their schools.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
The courts of Indiana Greenfield-Central Community School and it jurisdiction.
Opinion:
This case was surprising for me. I didn’t think that any states allowed for corporal punishment
of a student.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
393 U.S. 503
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Decided February 24, 1969
FACTS:
Mary Beth Tinker was a 13-year-old junior high school student in December 1965 when she and
a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the war in Vietnam. The
school board banned the protest. When Mary Beth arrived at school she was told to remove the
armband, but refused. The school decided to send her home. Four other students, including her
siblings were suspended. They were not allowed to return to school unless they agreed to
remove their armbands. The students returned without armbands, but protested by wearing black
clothing. The Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached Mary Beth’s family, and the ACLU agreed
to help the family with the lawsuit. Their parents, in turn, filed suit in U.S. District Court.
DECISION:
The court upheld the decision of the school board. The decision was appealed and brought to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the Court's decision continued to stand. This
forced the Tinkers to appeal to the Supreme Court. The courts ruled that students do not "shed
their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Therefore, the ruling was in favor of Mary Beth and the other students.
ISSUES:
Comment [KG5]: Not really a sped case, but interesting none the less. This case was an issue regarding the First Amendment.
HOLDING:
In this case the students felt that they should have been allowed to protest the war by wearing a
banner on their arm. The school felt that it was a disruptive to the school climate. The ruling of
the case was held for the students.
ANALYSIS:
Mary Beth and her friends were expressing themselves by wearing arm bans to protest the war,
and that was seen as disorderly behavior by the school. With the help of the ACLU, the families
of these students sued. The Court ruled that wearing a black armband was not disruptive, and
school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. This
was their right of the First Amendment. It applied to public schools, and the Court held that the
First Amendment protected the right of students to wear the armbands.
SCOPE OF THE HOLDING:
The courts of Des Moines Independent Community School District and its jurisdiction.
Opinion:
Even though this case did not have to do with students with disabilities, this was my preferred
case. I truly appreciate those who stand firmly for something that they believe in. I am grateful
for the First Amendment in that we have the freedom to express ourselves. There are still many
people in the world who are not as fortunate as we are.
Comment [KG6]: Civil rights and the freedom to express our beliefs is what our country is the most proud of…yeah for kids for taking a stand, yet we punish them! Sad.