# data[].attributes.body
The case was initially filed on behalf of six African American elementary school students in San Francisco who were placed in special education classes for the "educable mentally retarded" (EMR) based on their IQ testing scores. During the 1970's, California began to establish EMR classrooms to help students with disabilities. These classes took students out of regular classroom settings and did not allow students opportunities to grow alongside their peers. The plaintiffs argued that the IQ tests were culturally biased against African American students and would lead to socioeconomic and educational disparities.

# data[].attributes.body
The San Francisco Court determined that the case could proceed as a class action on behalf "of all black San Francisco school children who have been classified as mentally retarded on the bases of I.Q test results." The court also granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of standardized tests to place African American students in EMR classes.

# data[].attributes.body
In December of 1974, the district court expanded the affected students to include "all black California school children who have been or may in the future be classified as mentally retarded on the basis of IQ test." Also, a statewide preliminary injunction went into affect prohibiting the use of IQ tests on African American children for EMR placement.

# data[].attributes.body
The trial began with testimonies arguing about the cultural bias in IQ tests and their disproportionate impact on African American students. One of the students who was placed in an EMR class took the stand as well. Many explained that the IQ tests were discrimantory in design agaistn african aermcain children and led to disproportionate numbers being placed in EMR classes that should not be in those classes. They also found that the use of IQ test violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as there was not equal protection under the law. The IQ tests also were argued to have violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs later amended the complaint a second time to include the violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

In July of 1977, the district court permanently stopped the use of standardized IQ tests on African American children to place them in EMR classes. The court also ordered the school district to "re-evaluate every black child currently in an EMR class" without using any standardized tests.

# data[].attributes.body
The decision to prohibit the use of IQ tests to place African American students in EMR-type classes was upheld on appeal in 1984. The superintendent of the San Fransisco school was not found to have been intentionally discriminatory. He was hired recently and the policies were already in affect.

In 1986, the court altered its monitoring directives and required alternative means of assessment for student placement. These types of assessments include but are not limited to students personal history, behavior, and classroom performance.

# data[].attributes.body
Monitoring of enrolled African American children decreased the disproportion placement in 'dead end' classes. Placement of minorities in all EMR classes was re-evaluated as well. Larry P v Riles was an important case for special education law as it found that there should be multiple evaluations and assessments used to decide if kids need extra help or not. Today, legal precedent requires that schools must use RTI or responses to intervention as a preliminary step before suggesting the need of special education services. This case is important for educators to know because it helps to reinforce the idea of multiple forms of assessment, evaluation, teaching methods, and learning methods. Not every student is the same, and every piece of the student matters. We must take into account all factors when a student is struggling so we can better assist them. Also, the case can make us more aware of systematic discrimination around us. By being more aware, we can help in dismantling eurocentric ideas that do not serve and help all. This case reminds us that, unfortunately, we have to keep our eyes open for these possibilities. By reviewing cases like Larry P. v. Riles, educators are reminded to see the whole picture and not just one piece of the puzzle.