The school district was ordered to develop a test that helps determine

The school district was ordered to develop a test

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. 1985 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center This 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.
Image of page 6
SPD LAW ANNOTATED TIMELINE 7 not the case. 1985 Burlington v. Mass This law affected IEP’s and placement and financial responsibility of students when placement is outside of public school. It provided parents the right to take their 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 services the child needed. They were also required to pay for student’s education while court proceedings occurred and were entitled to a reimbursement. 1988 Honig v. Doe relates 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 the rights of the individual student. 1989 Daniel 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 both special education services and general education services that allow students to participate with typical students along with students with 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. 1993 Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills SD Affects the IEP by providing services needed to the student Schools are required to provide students with special education services even if the student/their families choose to attend a religious school. Schools must provide services such as an interpreter to students who choose to attend religious schools. 1993 Doe 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’s IEP reflects those needs.
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture