# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education

Year: 1954

Background:

Before this case, the phrase "Separate but equal", which was established in 1896 was prevalent in public schools. There was a lot of racial segregation.

Claims for each side:

Brown- They argued that the segregation in public schools based on race was unequal, which led to educational resources being misplaced for African American students.

Board of Education- They argued that segregation in schools was okay as long as there was equal facilities and resources for all students.

Decision:

Racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Impact on Special Education:

It influenced a broader civil rights movement.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/176/

Year: 1982

Background:

Amy Rowley, a deaf student, was attending a public school where she got some special education services, but her parents requested that she get more services, such as a sign language interpreter for all of her classes.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that Amy should get a sign language interpreter for all of her classes.

School- They argued that they were providing Amy with FAPE under IDEA, and that Amy was making good progress.

Decision:

They ruled in favor of the school district. They established the "Rowley Standard"

Impact on Special Education:

It helped to better define FAPE.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-558

Year: 1984

Background:

Amber Tatro, a young girl with spine bifida, who attended a public school and required intermittent catheterization.

Claims for each side:

Parents: The parents argued that intermittent catheterization was a related service that Amber needed during the school day. They stated that the school refusing to do so was against IDEA.

School: The school argued that it was a medical service, and they are only needed to provide services that are education related.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents. They said the service is a related service under IDEA.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified the related services defined in IDEA.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/84-433#:~:text=Unanimous%20decision&text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20held%20that,the%20ability%20to%20order%20reimbursement.

Year: 1985

Background:

Andrew F, a student who had been diagnosed with a learning disability, had an IEP that his parents did not agree with.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued to be reimbursed for the private school that they paid for since the public school failed to provide the proper education under IDEA.

School- They argued that they proposed the proper IEP.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents. They stated that since the student was not getting the proper education and the parents had to enroll him in a private school in order to get that, then the public school has to pay.

Impact on Special Education:

It established "total reimbursement" as a solution for parents when the public schools fails to have FAPE. It brought to attention the importance of providing and individualized and proper education for students with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-728

Year: 1988

Background:

Two students with emotional and behavior disorders and they were facing expulsion due to misconduct.

Claims for each side:

Parents: They argued that their behavior came from their disorders. They stated that IDEA protected their children from losing education because of their behavior from their disabilities.

School: They argued that they had the authority to punish students for misconduct, regardless if it is related to a disability.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents. They stated that students should not be expelled for behavior caused by their disabilities. But if it comes to safety of another, they can allow up to a 10 day suspension.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified IDEA's protection is also for those with behavior disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/92-94

Year: 1993

Background:

Michael Zobrest, a deaf student, and his parents are seeking sign language interpreting services for him in his Catholic high school.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that not getting these services for Michael goes against IDEA.

School- They argued that providing these services in a catholic school goes against the Establishment Clause.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents since this is a related service.

Impact on Special Education:

It helped to clarify the different related services.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793

Year: 1999

Background:

Student, Garret F, who had a spinal cord injury and suffered from paralysis was getting medical services from his school.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that the school has to provide these medical services because it is a related service under IDEA.

School- They argued that these medical services are beyond what they need to offer under IDEA. They also brought up the costs.

Decision:

They ruled in favor of the parents saying that the medical services were related services under IDEA.

Impact on Special Education:

It helped to clarify related services under IDEA.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-698

Year: 2005

Background:

The parents of Brian Schaffer, a disabled student, did not agree with his placement.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that the school's IEP was incorrect.

School- They argued that if the parents felt this way, then should should tell them the services and placements that they believe Brian should have.

Decision:

They ruled in favor of the school district. The Court held that the burden of proof in a due process hearing to determine that the IEP and what it entails rests on the party seeking relief, even if it is the parents or the school.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified that the party who questions the IEP bears the burden of proof.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/05-18

Year: 2006

Background:

Joseph Arnold's parents wanted the public school to pay for his private school tuition after not getting the proper education.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that the school should pay for their son's private school.

School- They argued that because there was no mention of expert fees, they did not owe money.

Decision:

They ruled in favor of the school because IDEA did not mention expert fees.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified what costs could be reimbursed.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-983

Year: 2007

Background:

The parents of Jacob Winkelman disagreed with their ability to represent their child in a lawsuit without legal representation.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that they wanted to represent their child in court without an attorney.

School- They argued that IDEA did not grant them this right.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents saying that they can represent their child without an attorney, as long as they act on their own behalfs.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified the rights of parents in IDEA.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-305

Year: 2009

Background:

The parents of T.A, who has a disability, had some issues with the school district after he was placed in a private facility for emotional and behavior issues.

Claims for each side:

Parents- They argued that the school district has failed to provide their child with FAPE and wanted to be reimbursed for the money they paid for the private institution.

School- They argued that they offered him the appropriate education and it was the parent's choice to send their child to the private facility.

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of the parents, and that they may be entitled to reimbursement.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified the guideline of reimbursement for parents who sent their child to private schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Information link:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/879/

Background:

Bowen was getting medical care in their public school.

Claims on each side:

Bowen- They argued for reimbursement for medical services under related services in IDEA.

School- They argued that these services were not "educational".

Decision:

The court ruled in favor of Bowen because services provided under a student's IEP could not be excluded from Medicaid reimbursement.

Impact on Special Education:

It clarified more services under IDEA.