WGU D002 EXAM WITH COMPLETE
SOLUTION 100% GUARANTEED
PASS
Diana VS California State Board of Education (1970) - Answer-Overview: Nine Mexican-
American students contested their placement in classes for students with mild mental
retardation based solely on IQ test administered in English
Ruling: Students must be assessed in their primary language or with test that do not
require English Fluency.
Impact: Paved the way foe evaluation and assessment processes to be provided in the
student's primary language
PARCS VS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) - Answer-Overview: PARC sued the
state over a law that allowed officials to deny disabled children's access to schools. Law
gave school districts the authority to deny services to children aged 8 years who had not
reached the mental age of 5 years but also been used to justify removal of students who
struggled to integrate into classrooms.
Ruling: In favor of PARC the state can not determine educability and that the laws were
unconstitutional.
Impact: 1. Pivotal in development of SPED
2. It affirms the rights established by Brown VS Topeka applied to children with
disabilities
3. Schools must provide free and accessible education regardless of disability or
impairment
4. Child can not be suspended for more than 2 days without a hearing
Mills Vs. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) - Answer-Overview:
Students who have been excluded from public schools because of learning and
behavior problems sued the DC school district. The district claimed that it did not have
enough money to provide SPED services
Ruling: Lack of funds is not an excuse for failing to provide services to exceptional
children's. If sufficient funds are not available then all programs should be cut back
proportionally.
Impact: Highlighted the rights of students to due process in education and helped lay
the foundation that eventually led to section 504 and IDEA
,Larry P. VS Riles - Answer-Overview: Challenged the disproportionate placement of
African Americans children in SEPD based solely on IQ testing. The IQ test used failed
to recognize the children's cultural background but when different test were used no
indications of intellectual disability were apparent.
Ruling: IQ cannot be used as the sole basis for placing children into SPED
Impact: Led to the thorough and multi-tiered evaluation process to determine if students
are eligible for SPED
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School system VS Rowley (1982) - Answer-
Overview: Is there a limit on what schools are expected to pay for their students?
Parents wanted specialized expensive services. School said efficient services were
already in place.
Ruling: Schools are not required to provide superior services they are required to
provide services that are equal and and appropriate
Impact: 1. Defined what appropriate means in FAPE under IDEA
2. IEP's must be reasonably calculated to provide the student with FAPE
3. Specially designed instruction and related services are to provide FAPE
4. Services must be based on the unique needs of the student
Honig VS DOE (1988) - Answer-Overview: School administrator's tried to indefinitely
expel 2 students with emotional disturbances for their violent disruptive conduct. Since
the behaviors were a consequence of their disabilities the plaintiffs held that the school
was in violation of the Education for all handicapped children act.
Ruling: Children with emotional and or behavior disabilities could be removed from
school indefinitely for misbehavior if the behavior was a manifestation of their ability
Impact: 1. Led to the Implementation of Due Process and Manifest Determinations
2. Using Manifest Determination for students with emotional disability and culturally and
linguistically diverse learners shifted SPED in critical ways.
3. Set the standard of 10 days as dividing line between short-term discipline and a long-
term consequence that would violate the students right to a FAPE
4. If a student is considered dangerous school personnel may request a hearing officer
to bring the student to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 days.
Parents can appeal either decision but the child will remain in the alternative setting
while the appeal is conducted.
Daniel RR VS State Board of Education (1989) - Answer-Overview: Daniel RR was not
benefiting from a placement in a class of non-handicapped students. School
recommended that he should be placed full time in self-contained classroom. The
parents disagreed
, Ruling: Court ruled that the student had been placed in the least restrictive environment
and so was not violating EAHA
Impact: Daniel RR reinforced the concept of least restrictive environment as well as
what maximum extent possible meant in SPED situations.
Florence County School District four VS Shannon Carter (1993) and Forest Grove
School District VS TA (2009) - Answer-Overview: Coping with disabilities can be
expensive and questions of cost were at the heart of these cases. Who pays when
students are not or can not be provided with a FAPE and parents are forced to take
action.
Ruling: When public schools fail to provide a FAPE requiring parents to turn to private
schools the parents are entitled to reimbursement
Impact: Represent important political and cultural shifts and parental options and
protections . The ability for parents to seek out resources when public schools failed to
provide them was greatly expanded.
Endrew F VS Douglas County School District (2017) - Answer-Overview: What are the
expectation of an IEP. A student with ASD had made no progress on his IEP goals.
Parents argued that he should have an equal opportunity to achieve and be placed in a
gen ed classroom. School argued that he only had the right to de minimis or a minimal
benefit from his IEP and thus they had followed the law.
Ruling: The de minimis standard was rejected unanimously affirming that receiving
basic or some benefit of education was not satisfactory nor an acceptable rationale by
the school district. IDEA expects that students can be integrated into a regular
classroom and are expected to advance like other students.
Impact: The court affirmed that the intent of IDEA is for students with disabilities to
make meaningful progress and meet appropriately ambitious goals. IEPs must be
reasonably calculated to the students needs and circumstances.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) - Answer-First federal law to
specifically address the education of students with disabilities
Student Involvement in the IEP Process
(Meeting Students Needs with an IEP) - Answer-Complete a multiple intelligences
questionnaire.
Create an outline listing areas of strengths and area of weakness.
The format for IEP's differ from state to state and even district to district within the same
state. Though they may look different all contain the same required areas
SOLUTION 100% GUARANTEED
PASS
Diana VS California State Board of Education (1970) - Answer-Overview: Nine Mexican-
American students contested their placement in classes for students with mild mental
retardation based solely on IQ test administered in English
Ruling: Students must be assessed in their primary language or with test that do not
require English Fluency.
Impact: Paved the way foe evaluation and assessment processes to be provided in the
student's primary language
PARCS VS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) - Answer-Overview: PARC sued the
state over a law that allowed officials to deny disabled children's access to schools. Law
gave school districts the authority to deny services to children aged 8 years who had not
reached the mental age of 5 years but also been used to justify removal of students who
struggled to integrate into classrooms.
Ruling: In favor of PARC the state can not determine educability and that the laws were
unconstitutional.
Impact: 1. Pivotal in development of SPED
2. It affirms the rights established by Brown VS Topeka applied to children with
disabilities
3. Schools must provide free and accessible education regardless of disability or
impairment
4. Child can not be suspended for more than 2 days without a hearing
Mills Vs. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) - Answer-Overview:
Students who have been excluded from public schools because of learning and
behavior problems sued the DC school district. The district claimed that it did not have
enough money to provide SPED services
Ruling: Lack of funds is not an excuse for failing to provide services to exceptional
children's. If sufficient funds are not available then all programs should be cut back
proportionally.
Impact: Highlighted the rights of students to due process in education and helped lay
the foundation that eventually led to section 504 and IDEA
,Larry P. VS Riles - Answer-Overview: Challenged the disproportionate placement of
African Americans children in SEPD based solely on IQ testing. The IQ test used failed
to recognize the children's cultural background but when different test were used no
indications of intellectual disability were apparent.
Ruling: IQ cannot be used as the sole basis for placing children into SPED
Impact: Led to the thorough and multi-tiered evaluation process to determine if students
are eligible for SPED
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School system VS Rowley (1982) - Answer-
Overview: Is there a limit on what schools are expected to pay for their students?
Parents wanted specialized expensive services. School said efficient services were
already in place.
Ruling: Schools are not required to provide superior services they are required to
provide services that are equal and and appropriate
Impact: 1. Defined what appropriate means in FAPE under IDEA
2. IEP's must be reasonably calculated to provide the student with FAPE
3. Specially designed instruction and related services are to provide FAPE
4. Services must be based on the unique needs of the student
Honig VS DOE (1988) - Answer-Overview: School administrator's tried to indefinitely
expel 2 students with emotional disturbances for their violent disruptive conduct. Since
the behaviors were a consequence of their disabilities the plaintiffs held that the school
was in violation of the Education for all handicapped children act.
Ruling: Children with emotional and or behavior disabilities could be removed from
school indefinitely for misbehavior if the behavior was a manifestation of their ability
Impact: 1. Led to the Implementation of Due Process and Manifest Determinations
2. Using Manifest Determination for students with emotional disability and culturally and
linguistically diverse learners shifted SPED in critical ways.
3. Set the standard of 10 days as dividing line between short-term discipline and a long-
term consequence that would violate the students right to a FAPE
4. If a student is considered dangerous school personnel may request a hearing officer
to bring the student to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 days.
Parents can appeal either decision but the child will remain in the alternative setting
while the appeal is conducted.
Daniel RR VS State Board of Education (1989) - Answer-Overview: Daniel RR was not
benefiting from a placement in a class of non-handicapped students. School
recommended that he should be placed full time in self-contained classroom. The
parents disagreed
, Ruling: Court ruled that the student had been placed in the least restrictive environment
and so was not violating EAHA
Impact: Daniel RR reinforced the concept of least restrictive environment as well as
what maximum extent possible meant in SPED situations.
Florence County School District four VS Shannon Carter (1993) and Forest Grove
School District VS TA (2009) - Answer-Overview: Coping with disabilities can be
expensive and questions of cost were at the heart of these cases. Who pays when
students are not or can not be provided with a FAPE and parents are forced to take
action.
Ruling: When public schools fail to provide a FAPE requiring parents to turn to private
schools the parents are entitled to reimbursement
Impact: Represent important political and cultural shifts and parental options and
protections . The ability for parents to seek out resources when public schools failed to
provide them was greatly expanded.
Endrew F VS Douglas County School District (2017) - Answer-Overview: What are the
expectation of an IEP. A student with ASD had made no progress on his IEP goals.
Parents argued that he should have an equal opportunity to achieve and be placed in a
gen ed classroom. School argued that he only had the right to de minimis or a minimal
benefit from his IEP and thus they had followed the law.
Ruling: The de minimis standard was rejected unanimously affirming that receiving
basic or some benefit of education was not satisfactory nor an acceptable rationale by
the school district. IDEA expects that students can be integrated into a regular
classroom and are expected to advance like other students.
Impact: The court affirmed that the intent of IDEA is for students with disabilities to
make meaningful progress and meet appropriately ambitious goals. IEPs must be
reasonably calculated to the students needs and circumstances.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) - Answer-First federal law to
specifically address the education of students with disabilities
Student Involvement in the IEP Process
(Meeting Students Needs with an IEP) - Answer-Complete a multiple intelligences
questionnaire.
Create an outline listing areas of strengths and area of weakness.
The format for IEP's differ from state to state and even district to district within the same
state. Though they may look different all contain the same required areas
