Assignment 5
Brief of 5 ESE Supreme Court Cases
by
Dave Winogron
856-802-9234 (home)
609-656-4900 Ext. 5665 (work)
EDD 8434 – 25594 – OL3
School Law – Dr. Robert J. Safransky
Nova Southeastern University
October 7, 2007
2
Case 1
Citation: Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1978).
Argued: November 9, 1987
Date Decided: March 20, 1988
Vote: 6-2: Schools may not exclude disabled students for behavior stemming from their
disability.
Facts of Case: Two public school students who were classified as emotionally disturbed were
suspended from school for an indefinite period time. Their disruptive and violent
behavior was related to their disabilities. Suit was filed against the district contending that
the suspensions and pending expulsion from school violated Public Law 94-142, the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EHA).
Legal Principles at Issue: Civil Rights and Rights of Disabled
Legal Basis for Decision: While the case regarding John Doe was deemed moot due to age
limitation of services under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975,
second respondent may need future protection against exclusion from school based on
suspension for behavior resulting from the disability. Students are entitled to a "free
appropriate public education" within the state of California. The district may not exclude
students without due process. Furthermore, suspending disabled students for more than
10 days would constitute a “change in placement” for behavior related to their disability.
The "stay-put" provision prohibits excluding disabled students for conduct related to their
disabilities during review of disciplinary process. The EHA favors maintaining the
disabled child’s educational placement and that should only be changed by evidence that
current placement will result in injury either to student or to others. Lower court was
correct to provide a balance between the disabled student’s right to receive a free
appropriate public education, against the school’s interests to provide a safe environment
for other students.
Quotable: “Envisioning the IEP as the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for
disabled children, and aware that schools had all too often denied such children
appropriate educations without in any way consulting their parents, Congress repeatedly
emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental
participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its
effectiveness.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Brennan
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/484/305/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_728/
3
Case 2
Citation: Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
Argued: March 23, 1982
Date Decided: June 28, 1982
Vote: 6-3: The district met the requirements of the EHA by providing an educational program
resulting in academic and social success. The sign-language interpreter requested by the
parents was not required under the EHA.
Facts of Case: A deaf student was placed in a regular kindergarten class to decide what
supplemental services would be necessary for her education. In the prior year school
administration prepared for the student’s arrival by learning sign-language and installing
a teletype machine to allow communication with her deaf parents. Additionally, the
student was provided with a FM hearing aid for class use. The student successfully
completed kindergarten. The following year’s IEP called for regular classroom
placement, with continued use of the FM hearing aid, receiving instruction one hour each
day from a tutor for the deaf and three hours each week from a speech therapist. The
parents insisted on also having a sign-language interpreter. After consultation the
administration concluded that an interpreter was not needed in the first-grade classroom.
After an independent hearing also denying the interpreter, the parents appealed and
finally brought suit. Parents’ claim was that denial of the sign-language interpreter
constituted a denial of the "free appropriate public education" guaranteed by the EHA.
Legal Principles at Issue: Civil Rights and Rights of Handicapped.
Legal Basis for Decision: State must provide “personalized instruction with sufficient support
services” to allow children with disabilities “to benefit educationally from that
instruction.” EHA does not guarantee “a certain level of education” but provides students
with disabilities opportunity for education. The student is receiving an `adequate'
education, performs better than the average child in her class and is advancing easily
from grade to grade. In light of this finding, and of the fact that Amy was receiving
personalized instruction and related services calculated to meet her educational needs,
Quotable: “Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped
children. But in seeking to provide such access to public education, Congress did not
impose upon the States any greater substantive educational standard than would be
necessary to make such access meaningful.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Rehnquist
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/458/176/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1002/
4
Case 3
Citation: Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
Argued: October 6, 1993
Date Decided: November 9, 1993
Vote: 9-0: Parents have the right to withdraw their child from an inappropriate educational
setting and place child in setting providing more appropriate services. A court may order
tuition reimbursement for a child withdrawn from a public school providing an
inappropriate education under IDEA and enrolled in a private school that provides a
suitable education.
Facts of Case: A ninth grade public school student was classified, however the parents did not
think the IEP was adequate and requested a hearing to challenge its appropriateness.
Local and state hearing officers rejected the claim contending IEP was adequate.
Pending further action, parents withdrew child from public school and placed her in a
private school specializing in educating children with disabilities. Parents filed suit
claiming the district had breached its duty under IDEA.
Legal Principles at Issue: Civil Rights and Rights of Disabled
Legal Basis for Decision: IDEA was intended to ensure that children with disabilities receive an
education that is both appropriate and free. The district court ruled in the parents' favor
that the proposed IEP did not satisfy the requirements of the EHA. While parents have
the right to withdraw their child from an inappropriate educational setting and place child
in setting providing more appropriate services, they are entitled to reimbursement only if
ordered by a federal court. The courts must consider all relevant factors, including level
of reimbursement required under IDEA. The parents were entitled to reimbursement of
tuition and other costs.
Quotable: “There is no doubt that Congress has imposed a significant financial burden on States
and school districts that participate in IDEA. Yet public educational authorities who want
to avoid reimbursing parents for the private education of a disabled child can do one of
two things: give the child a free appropriate public education in a public setting, or place
the child in an appropriate private setting of the State's choice.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice O'Connor
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/510/7/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_91_1523/
5
Case 4
Citation: Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999).
Argued: November 4, 1998
Date Decided: March 3, 1999
Vote: 7-2: Related services or health care costs must be included to enable student attendance in
school. Cost is not an overwhelming determining factor for providing services.
Facts of Case: A public school student, who was injured in a motorcycle accident, is wheelchairbound, and on a ventilator requires assistance for personal needs during the course of a
school day. From kindergarten through fourth grade his extra needs were met by family
members, using insurance or the settlement proceeds. Parent then requested the district to
assume health care services during school day. Under the belief that there is no legal
obligation, the district refuses financial responsibility for these extra services. The district
also sought a cost-based exemption based on the financial burden of the services. An
Administrative Law Judge and the lower courts have determined that the district must
provide the required “school health services.” The district believes that such care is too
costly and should be deemed “medical” services which are out of the districts purview.
Legal Principles at Issue: Civil Rights and Rights of Disabled
Legal Basis for Decision: While the district has financial concerns, inherent in the IDEA is the
access to school. Providing the student with educational opportunities by providing
supportive services is of utmost importance. Furthermore, cost to the district should not
be used as a measure for acceptable services to be offered.
Quotable: “This case is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be assured,
not the level of education that a school must finance once access is attained.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Stevens
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/526/66/case.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_96_1793/
Case 5
Citation: Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 526 U.S. (2007).
Argued: February 27, 2007
Date Decided: May 21, 2007
6
Vote: 7-2: Parents have rights under IDEA and may take legal action to represent the child’s and
their own rights through the IDEA procedural process, including federal court.
Facts of Case: A young child was evaluated and classified by the public school district as special
needs and placed in a pre-school offering special education services. Prior to
kindergarten, the district IEP called for placement in a regular public school kindergarten.
The parents disagreed with the placement and appealed. The parents of a special needs
student filed suit in federal court after a hearing and an appeal regarding their child’s
individualized education program (IEP) was rejected. The parents claimed that the IEP
failed to provide a “free appropriate public education.” The parents placed the child in a
private school at their own expense pending the outcome of the appeal process. The court
then ruled that parents who are not lawyers do not have the right to represent their child
with disabilities, or themselves, in federal court under IDEA. Circuit Court ruled that
IDEA protects the child not the parents.
Legal Principles at Issue: Civil Rights. Can a non-lawyer parent of a special needs child
represent their own or the child’s rights in federal court?
Legal Basis for Decision: Since the parents are given “enforceable” rights during the
administrative stage of the IDEA process, it would be consistent if those same rights were
in effect during federal court proceedings pertaining to their child’s education. Their
rights are “not limited to procedural and reimbursement” only but extend to all matters
concerning their child’s right to public education. The language of the IDEA does not
afford some rights to both parent and child, while other rights are for only one party.
Furthermore, statutes referring to the rights of the child do not exclude the parent.
Quotable: “Parents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA
claims on their own behalf.”
Writing for the Majority: Justice Kennedy
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/new-cases/05-983.pdf
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_983/