Question
Answered step-by-step
GeneralDovePerson1010
Give a one hundred word or more response on any questions you have…
Give a one hundred word or more response on any questions you have and/or thoughts to the following discussion points.
Case Law Discussion 3:
1.
Brown v Board of Education is, quite possibly, the most well-known Supreme Court decision in the history of the court despite being decided nearly 70 years ago. The case was actually a combination of five different suits: Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Briggs v Elliot, Davis v County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v Belton, and Bolling v Sharpe. However, the case was named after the suit brought by multiple families against the Topeka Board of Education, most notably Oliver and Leola Brown on behalf of their daughter Linda who was not allowed to enroll in a local, all-white school. They instead bussed her to a black school further away. A Kansas district court decided this was allowed based on a prior decision in Plessey v Ferguson, a Supreme Court case from 1896 that famously allowed school segregation under the concept of “Separate but Equal.” However, the Supreme Court reversed course in 1954, stating that segregation based on race violated equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that while accommodations may be similar, the intangibles of being segregated made true equality impossible.
Brown v Board of Education is still incredibly relevant in education today, but particularly regarding special education and students with disabilities. A quote from the decision stated that “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” While it was written in regard to race, it is easy to see how this applies to students with disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law in 1990 and states the rights and services students with disabilities are entitled to. Among those are the right to the least restrictive environment (LRE). This means that students with disabilities should be in classes with students without disabilities as frequently as possible. The reasoning applied to Brown v Board of Education also beautifully applies to LRE. By removing students with disabilities and placing them in a self-contained class when it is not strictly necessary, they are not only potentially being denied a superior quality of education, they are essentially being labeled as “other” and being given the message that they are inferior and undeserving. Brown v Board of Education goes on to state that “a sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.” It is our duty as educators to give our students every possible opportunity to succeed, not just with accommodations, but by removing barriers such as segregation based on disability.
2.
Tommy Smith was an eight year old student with cerebral palsy attending a day program at Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital in East Providence, R.I., as placed by the Cumberland School Committee. The school committee informed Tommy’s parents they would no longer fund his placement, stating that according to Rhode Island law the responsibility for educating Tommy fell on the State’s Division of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH). Tommy’s family filed suit in the Federal District Court against the school committee alleging the following violations; state law, the Education for All Handicapped Children (EHA) the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held the belief that according to State Law Tommy was entitled to a Free and Appropriate Special Education paid for by the school committee. Questions arose regarding the award of attorney’s fees and the family petitioned for relief. The court ruled that because the family had to exhaust their EHA remedies before they could bring their other claims such as the 504 or Due Process of Equal Protection Clause, the family was entitled to fees for the procedures. The dispute of the award of fees was taken to the United States Supreme Court. They were not awarded any additional fees. In short, this case is significant for placing restrictions on the ability for petitioners to be awarded legal expenses in pursuit of federally protected rights.
This case was initially very confusing to follow as there were many layers to consider. I still can’t say I understand the entirety of the case and the rulings. What I have gathered is the significance of this case and the impact it has on families in pursuit of their federally protected rights. The legal fees that a family can accrue while in pursuit of their federally protected rights can be significant. If a family was struggling with the rights of their child being met, they may find themselves hesitant or reluctant to pursue any legal action considering the toll it can take financially. This is solely based on the proceedings of this case and the restrictions placed on families looking to recover legal expenses.
This case was upheld based on requirements of the Education of Handicapped Act. Today it is known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This makes a free and appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities and ensures special education and related services to those children. It is always are hope that the needs of children with eligible disabilities are met under IDEA. Families should not have to fight for their rights to be met and most certainly should not have to accrue such significant costs by taking legal action. Smith v. Robinson is a significant case in the history of special education law.
I am intrigued by this case and would be interested to know how it has impacted cases in the years to follow.
Case Law Discussion 4
1.
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District, 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989)
This is another landmark case in the history of special education. Timothy W was born two months prematurely with severe respiratory problems, and shortly thereafter experienced an intracranial hemorrhage, subdural effusions, seizures, hydrocephalus, and meningitis. As a result, Timothy was multiply handicapped and profoundly mentally retarded. Because of this, the Rochester School District refused to provide appropriate education for him. The school district argued that his disability was so severe that he was unable to benefit from any provided education. After several failing attempts to request for special education services, Timothy filed a complaint in the United States District Court. However, the District Court ruled that the school district was not obligated to provide special education for Timothy. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and stated that the purpose of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) is “to assure all handicapped children have available to them … a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs …”The Court held that the Act provides for a zero-reject policy and that under the Act such severally disabled children are in fact given the highest priority and protection under the act itself. Related services were also defined as equally important as special education needs.
Findings of this case ruled on the necessity for school districts to provide a free appropriate public education to all qualified students with disabilities unconditionally and without exception. The EAHCA and the implementing regulations define a “free appropriate public education” to mean “special education and related services which are provided at public expense …and are provided in conformity with an individualized education program.” Amendments to EAHCA enacted in 1990 changed the name of the act to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which is the legal basis for special education nowadays. Zero reject thus became one principle of IDEA. Timothy W set a precedent for other students with server disabilities that there’s zero reject in terms of school districts providing special education services to students with eligible disabilities regardless of the severity of disabilities. Even, according to IDEA regulations of 2006, school districts are responsible for providing services necessary to maintain the health and safety of student while he or she is in school, with services pertaining to breathing, nutrition, and other bodily functions, if these services can be provided by an individual with appropriate training rather than a licensed physician. As a school district, there’s no excuse to reject providing a free appropriate public education to any students with eligible disabilities. Otherwise, it’s a violation of IDEA which will result with legal consequences.
2.
Churhran v Walled Lake Consol. Schools
Churhan was a student born with muscular dystrophy, a disease that effects a students motor functions. Churhan was a resident of Walled Lake Conslodatited Schools who attended a program for disabled children at Farmington Harrison School. Churhan needs a one on one paraprofessional at all times and is wheelchair bound due to his diagnosis. Churhan had annual IEP meetings to set up his goals for the school years 1984-85 through 1990-91. He was to receive special education and related services. In 1988 IEPC discussed that Churhan was meeting his goals, was handling study cases and his alternative placements for the next year were rejected. Although Churhan completed graduation and ceremonies, he could still attend classes at Harrison in 1988. By June of 1991 all special education services were revoked from Churhan, which lead to the hearing.
In this case the School Districts are stating that they have provided Churhan with everything that he needs, stating he has completed all that the special education department has offered to him. Churhan was even offered transition programs to help him determine what he would like to complete it as furthering his education. It was even evaluated for further career opportunities in computers. Churhan was offered and received a free, appropriate, public education and he is no longer eligible for special education services under the IDEA.
This is a great example of how today’s special education departments work well with students and finding their fit and niché. Today students with disabilities and in the special education department are allotted the time after high school until age 21, if they wish to take it. When I was in school, I was aware of this, but now working hands on and with special education students, I think it is a great thing. It gives time for these students to continue to grow their education and their learning. Transition programs are good for special education students so that they can get a feel of what it is like in the real world all while working and learning about life.
As for this case I think that this is a great example of why students should use their resources and services. Chuhran, in a way, abused his resources by not taking all of them. Not taking the transition program hurt him when he no longer had services, and he didn’t have the experience he needed for his next step in his life. Also this could be an example of school districts pushing students who need the extra education and staying to better themselves for their next steps.
