Court Cases
Introduction The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), passed by Congress in 1975, focused on the over one million students with disabilities excluded from public schools and students who only had limited access to an education (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). EHA had four primary goals including 1) providing all students with disabilities with a free and appropriate education (FAPE), 2) protecting the rights of students and parents, 3) helping states educate all children with disabilities, and 4) monitoring the effectiveness of efforts (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). Since the original law in 1975, there have been many revisions. In 1983, EHA was amended with P.L. 98-199, which added supports for students as they transitioned to from high school to adult living (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). In 1986, EHA was amended with P.L. 99-457 and services were added beginning at birth (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). In 1990, EHA was amended with P.L. 101-476 and the name changed to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). In 1997, IDEA was amended with P.L. 105-17; both P.L. 101-476 and P.L. 105-17 added services as student transitioned from high school to adult living (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 4). The most recent revision occurred in 2004 with P.L. 108-446 and included changes align the law with the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (U.S. Department of Education, 2007, p. 1). Through all of the changes, the goal initially established in 1975 of providing all students with disabilities with FAPE has remained consistent. Providing FAPE includes issues related to how students are disciplined, and the courts have made several important decisions related to IDEA and discipline of student with disabilities.
This paper will look at four cases related to the discipline of students with disabilities. The seminal cases reviewed in this paper include the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) and Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). The more recent court cases include Community Consolidated School District #93 v. John F. (IL) (2000) and Shelton v. Maya Angelou Public Charter School, 578 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2008). The cases all look at the issue of discipline as it relates to IDEA and students with disabilities.Analysis of Seminal Court DecisionsBoard of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)The first time the Supreme Court weighed in on EHA was through the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). The case was important because it limited what services a school needs to offer to students in special education based on the student’s current academic performance. Facts of the Case Amy Rowley was a first grade hearing-impaired student who attended a New Your public school whose parents sued the school in the States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Mead & Paige, 2008, p. 330). The law suit stated that the denial of a certified sign-language interpreter in all of her academic classes was a denial of FAPE (Mead & Paige, 2008, p. 330). The parents filed a complaint, and the Hearing Officer found in favor of the school; however, the parents appealed. Ultimately, the District Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Amy (Mead & Paige, 2008, p. 330).