Law Case Review 1: Mills v Board of Education Read the instructions for completing a law case review and the sample review. A blank template is provided for you to download. Submit your review as a

Law Case Review 1: Mills v Board of Education Read the instructions for completing a law case review and the sample review. A blank template is provided for you to download. Submit your review as a
3 EDU 460 & 660 CASE STUDIES INSTRUCTIONS Using the attached Legal Case Review template complete the assignment for each of the following 6 legal cases listed here. Cases for this trimester are: Mills v Board of Education Schaffer v Weast Clyde K. v Puyallup School District Board of Educ of the Hendrick Hudson School District v Rowley Daniel R.R. v State Board of Education Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School Save the template on your hard drive and rename the file for each case. Submit completed case review via dropbox as an attachment. 20 points each. Information for these cases can be found: in your textbook…see pages 361 – 365 for the Case Index. Refer to the textbook before searching/googling. legal databases or legal journal indexes, but there is usually a fee to join just by searching/googling the case (Shaffer v Weast is mentioned on over 16,000 websites) http://www.wrightslaw.com Read through the law case review sample provided. CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 EDU 460/660 LEGAL CASE REVIEWS Name _______________________________Date _________________ If you do not know what a case citation is, refer to Chapter 2. The case citation can be found on the Internet. It is not just the name of the case. Case Citation: ______________________________________________ Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. This will probably be the lengthiest response. Two or three sentences will not suffice. Explain the essential facts of the case; describe all aspects of the case; cite complainant profile, disability, issue; provide up-to-date facts. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: State the decision made in each. Provide information/decision in all courts. Some of the cases went to a hearing officer or administrative due process, then a district court of appeals, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rationale: Explain the gist of the court ruling (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). This is the reason the court arrived at its decision. It may be based on interpretation of the IDEA federal law. The court may refer to case law that has already been established. The court may consider a “factor-test” such as the four-factor test established in the Rachel H case. Holding: The precise ruling of the court. The length of this response can vary. It may be something as simple as the court held that the student’s placement was the LRE and the judgment of the district court was affirmed, or the answer may require a list of 3 or 4 decisions made by the court. Explain the gist of final court ruling; define main focus; explain relevance to special education issues. Scope of the holding: Identify the jurisdiction of the court , the population addressed by the court, and the issue(s) or cause(s) addressed in the case. This may be the US District Court, and if so, it applies to the people residing in that circuit (list the states that make up the circuit). If a case makes it to the Supreme Court, then the jurisdiction is nationwide. (Yes, that includes Alaska and Hawaii.) All of the decisions in the cases reviewed apply to the population associated with the public schools. If a case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, your statement should read something like this: This case was heard by the United States Supreme Court whose jurisdiction is nationwide. It affects all those associated with public schools. The case was related to least restrictive environment. Personal Reflection: State personal opinion of the pros and cons of the case decision(s); describe personal like or dislike for the decision(s); personal and/or professional implications for teaching. List the resources you used. They do not have to be in a formal bibliography.
Law Case Review 1: Mills v Board of Education Read the instructions for completing a law case review and the sample review. A blank template is provided for you to download. Submit your review as a
EDU 660 LEGAL CASE REVIEWS Name _______________________________Date _________________ Case Citation: ______________________________________________ Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: State the decision made in each. Rationale: Explain the gist of the court ruling (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). Holding: The precise ruling of the court. Scope of the holding: Answer the following. Identify the jurisdiction of the final court: List the area or states that make up the court’s jurisdiction: List the population addressed by the court: List the issue(s) or cause(s) addressed by the case: 6. Personal Reflection:
Law Case Review 1: Mills v Board of Education Read the instructions for completing a law case review and the sample review. A blank template is provided for you to download. Submit your review as a
EDU 460/660 LEGAL CASE REVIEW for Greer v Rome City School District Name: Rhonda Brewer Date: October 7, 2012 Case Citation: Greer v Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991) Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. Christy Greer, a child with Down’s Syndrome, lived in the Rome City School District. In 1986, when she was five years old, her mother began the process to enroll her at their neighborhood school, Elm Street Elementary School. On the enrollment form, Christy’s mother wrote that Christy had Down’s Syndrome and some other disabilities. The school wanted to evaluate Christy, but her mother refused and decided to homeschool Christy for the next two years. In 1988, Mrs. Greer attempted to enroll Christy in Elm Street Elementary School again and she continued to refuse an educational evaluation of Christy. The school district began administrative proceedings to request a hearing to enforce its requirement of an educational evaluation. While waiting for the hearing, the school district allowed Christy, a seven year old, to attend regular Kindergarten classes at Elm Street Elementary School. The regional hearing officer and then the state hearing officer both supported the school district’s position. In December of 1988 and January of 1989, Christy was evaluated by a psychologist and a psychometrist who were both employed by Georgia Department of Education. Their educational evaluations indicated that Christy had significant deficits in intellectual functioning, language skills, and articulation skills. Their report stated that Christy functioned as a moderately mentally handicapped child. The psychologist and psychometrist both recommended that Christy should be served in a setting that provided a high degree of individualization and used multisensory approaches. The school district then held an IEP meeting with Christy’s parents and a multidisciplinary team including the psychologist and psychometrist who had evaluated Christy. However, the school personnel had already prepared the IEP before the meeting and presented it to Christy’s parents as her proposed educational plan. The proposed IEP provided that Christy would be placed for a majority of the day in a self-contained special education class for children classified as mentally handicapped. The IEP also provided that she could attend PE, music, and lunch with non-handicapped children and that she would also receive speech therapy services. Christy’s parents disagreed with the IEP and requested time to review it and give it more consideration. The school agreed to meet again a few weeks later to discuss the IEP again. The Greers, Christy’s parents, then had her evaluated by a psychologist in private practice. The psychologist mostly agreed with the educational evaluation done before, but he also stated that the I.Q. test results could have been affected by a suspected attention problem and by Christy’s unintelligible speech. The psychologist disagreed with the school’s recommendation of a self-contained classroom because it would not provide enough intellectual stimulation for Christy to reach her full potential. When the IEP committee reconvened to discuss Christy’s placement again, the Greers presented the findings of the new evaluation. The school representatives reviewed the report, but did not change the proposed IEP. The parents stated their disagreement again and requested a regular education placement with the addition of speech therapy, but the school rejected the parent’s proposal. Decision in administrative hearings and the lower courts: State the decision made in each. Because the school district and the parents could not agree on the proposed IEP, the school initiated administrative proceedings to request a hearing before the regional hearing officer. The regional hearing officer agreed with the school district. After the parents appealed, the case went before the state hearing officer who also agreed with the school district. The parents appealed to the district court which held a bench trial on the issue in August of 1990. Meanwhile, Christy was still attending regular Kindergarten classes and had also begun speech services in 1989. The district court ruled on the side of the parents. The school district appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the District Court’s decision and ruled for the parents. Rationale: Explain the gist of the court ruling (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). The District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed that the school district had not appropriately considered the least restrictive environment for Christy. The school district had compared the options of a self-contained class to a regular education classroom with no supplementary aids or assistance. There was no evidence that the school district had attempted to evaluate the benefits of various supplementary aids or services for possible consideration of their use with Christy’s educational program. The court did not say that Christy should always be served in the regular education classroom, but stated that the school district should always consider the regular classroom first and determine if placement there would be appropriate. When considering the appropriateness of regular education placement, due consideration should also be given to use of supplementary services to make regular education more appropriate for children with disabilities. Holding: The precise ruling of the court. The court found that the school district had failed to attempt accommodations in the regular classroom which could have been the least restrictive environment. This was found to be a violation of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Scope of the holding: Identify the jurisdiction of the court and the population addressed by the court. This court held jurisdiction over all lower courts in the 11th district and the people who live there and are associated with public schools. The 11th district encompasses Florida, Alabama, and Georgia. This case addressed least restrictive environment. Personal Reflection: I believe that there are situations that require placement in self-contained classrooms, but such placement should never be assumed simply because of a child’s specific disability. Children with Down’s Syndrome vary considerably in intellectual and social functioning. The school acted appropriately in requiring an evaluation to determine Christy’s level of functioning. Once they reviewed the results, they should have considered more educational options (especially since the parents desired regular education placement). Since Christy attended the regular Kindergarten class during the time of legal proceedings, it would have been appropriate to use that time and provide a variety of supplementary services to evaluate their success with her. If the supplementary services had not been successful, it would have given the school district support in its position. So, it’s interesting that they didn’t even try any supplementary services. Apparently, they weren’t willing to use a continuum of services and begin with least restrictive environment when planning placement. On the other hand, it seems as though Christy’s parents were not realistic about her needs. The parents seemed to think that she could be appropriately placed in regular education with only speech therapy as an additional service. This case was a true example of a situation that required compromise and needed both parties to “meet in the middle.”