100%(7)7 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 11 pages.
The school district was ordered to develop a test that helps determine placement. They were also ordered to find if the special education services could be applied in an integrated school.1985City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living CenterThis case is in relation to transitional services.The Cleburne Living Center attempted to claim that the City of Cleburne attempted to deny their permit due to discrimination. The Supreme Court declared this was The residents were denied classification as suspect or quasi-suspect.
SPD LAW ANNOTATED TIMELINE 7not the case.1985Burlington v. MassThis law affected IEP’s and placement and financial responsibility of students whenplacement is outside of public school.It provided parents the right to taketheir child to a private school that provided services that the district did not provide. It also clarified financial responsibility and appropriate placement for the student while court proceedings occurred.The school district was required to pay for the students' education if they were unable to provide servicesthe child needed. They were also required to pay for student’s education while court proceedings occurred and were entitled to a reimbursement.1988Honig v. Doerelates to the rights to FAPE, suspension, expulsion.Students under the education EAHCA were not to be removed from their place of education while a decision to expel students was under review. if the behavior they are being expelled for was due to their disability. Students are able to be suspended a max of 10 days. And students could be expel if the needs of the total student population far exceed the rights of the child Students with disabilities are not allowed to be suspended for more than 10 days while expulsion is being reviewed. A student can only be expelled if the needs of the total population significantly outweigh therights of the individual student.1989Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education First introduced the concept of Special day classes as well as integration in a general education classroom.Schools are required to provide bothspecial education services and general education services that allow students to participate with typical students along with studentswith disabilities.Students were given the right to be included in both general education and extracurricular programs as well as special education courses on the same campus.1993Zobrest v. CatalinaFoothills SDAffects the IEP by providing services needed to the studentSchools are required to provide students with special education services even if the student/their families choose to attend a religiousschool.Schools must provide services such as an interpreter to students who choose to attend religious schools.1993Doe v. Withers This case affects FAPE, a student was denied oral testing by his history teacher when his IEP listed it as an accommodation.Teachers are required by law to provide modifications to and accommodations to a student who’sIEP reflects those needs.