Final

Question 1

Pennsylvania Association for retarded children (PARC) v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Answer 1

• all mentally retarded persons capable of benefitting from a program of education and training
• free program of education and training appropriate to child’s capacity
• 14th amendment equal protection clause
• foreshadowed and shaped subsequent federal laws regarding children with disabilites
  
  • required state of penn to locate and identify all school aged persons excluded from public schools
  • place children in free program appropriate to cilds capacity
  • required parental notice before child assigned to special education

Question 2

Mills v Board of Education

Answer 2

• reiterated many requirements from PARC
• additionally, schools must prepare a proposal outlining a suitable educational program for each child with a disability

Question 3

Two Prong Test - identification for special education

Answer 3

• disability in obtaining an education must be documented

- a need for special education must be established

Question 4

Two Prong test - appropriate education

Answer 4

• were IDEIA procedures followed in developing IEP

- is the program reasonably designed to benefit the child

Question 5

Rowley v Hendrick Hudson Central School District

Answer 5

• first case to reach supreme court to define “appropriate education”
• IDEIA only ensures education program reasonably designed to benefit the student, not best possible or most perfect
• set forth two prong test for appropriate education

Question 6

Holland Case

Answer 6

• presumption of placement in general education classroom can be rebutted. Four factors to consider
  1. Educational Benefits available in general education program as compared to special education program
  2. Nonacademic benefits of interaction with children who are not disabled
  3. Effect of the child’s presence on the teacher and other children in the classroom
  4. The cost of educating the child in the gen ed classroom

Question 7

Brillon v Klein Independent School District

Answer 7

• suggested 5th factor to consider for placement in gen ed classroom
  5. Whether child can benefit from the gen ed curriculum without substantial and burdensome curricular modifications.

Question 8

New Jersey v TLO (1975)

Answer 8

• students have the 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure
• search must not be excessively intrusive and the more personal the search, the more serious the reasons for search must be

Question 9

Sterling v Borough of Minesville (2000)

Answer 9

• privacy rights regarding sexual orientation

- right to be free from forced disclosure of sexual orientation

Question 10

Parham (1979)

Answer 10

• parents can commit minor to be institutionalized

- held that minors are incompetent to make decisions concerning their own need for treatment

Question 11

In case of subpoena

Answer 11

• student records belong to schools thus decisions regarding release in response to subpoena is responsibility of school district administration
• school district must make reasonable effort to notify parent of order of subpeona

Question 12

Newport Mesa v State of California DOE

Answer 12

• ruled providing parents a copy of a child’s answers on a completed test protocol is permissible within fair use
• FERPA right to student educational records

Question 13

Tinker v DeMoise

Answer 13

• students retain constitutional rights to freedom of speech in schools when it does not interrupt or disrupt with school functioning.

Question 14

Protection of Pupil Rights Act PPRA

Answer 14

• requires schools to notify parents when schools intend to administer survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals one or more of 8 types of personal information
  
  • includes political affiliations, potentially embarrassing psych problems, illegal, antisocial and self-incriminating behavior, sexual behaviors, religious beliefs

Question 15

Diana v Board of Education

Answer 15

• required schools to assess primary languae competency prior to the administration of assessment instruments

Question 16

Tarasoff v Regents of California

Answer 16

• duty to protect or warn

- confidentiality must yield in the instances which disclosure is essential to avoid danger to others

Question 17

Manifestation determination

Answer 17

review conducted to determine if school policy infraction was a cause of or significantly informed by a childs disability.

• review conducted by IEP team
• if disciplinary infraction is determined to be a manifestation of childs disability, IEP conduct functional behavioral assessment and implement beavior intervention plan
• if not determined by disability then disciplinary action that would be applicable to nondisabled students is carried out

Question 18

Grade Retention

Answer 18

requiring student to repeat a grade due to poor academic achievement

Question 19

Least Drastic Effective Procedures

Answer 19

First Choice - Strategies Based on Differential Reinforcement

Second choice - strategies Based on Withdrawal of Reinforcement for Undesired Behaviors

Third Choice - Strategies Based on Removal of Desired Reinforcers (e.g., Time Out)

Last Choice - Strategies Based on Presentation of Aversive Stimuli

Question 20

Suspected Child Abuse

Answer 20

School psychologists are mandated reporters in all states.
It is the duty of the child protection agency (CPS), not school personnel, to confirm or disconfirm the suspected abuse or neglect.

Question 21

McDuff v. Tamborlane (1999)

Answer 21

In the opinion of a Superior Court of Connecticut, the communication of the student-client’s past criminal activity is privileged whether the information is disclosed by the client or a member of his or her family. The judge also noted that there was no imminent risk of injury to the student, others, or property that would justify the breach of confidentially.

Question 22

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015

Answer 22

• requires each state to develop challenging academic content standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science and measurable achievement standards for those content areas
• The state’s accountability system must disaggregate and report separately the academic assessment scores of students who are economically disadvantaged, members of major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and those who are English learners.
• aim to remedy problem of nclb including sole reliance on statewide achievement test scores
• states now have greater discretion to select their own goals and academic acheivement standards

Question 23

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

Answer 23

schools must provide assistance or “take affirmative steps” to ensure that students who are ELLs have access to a meaningful education. It is not interpreted as requiring bilingual instruction for each child who is an ELL.
No federal mandate requires bilingual education for a student who is an ELL.
ESSA continues to fund English language acquisition programs under Title III.
And ESSA shifted accountability for students who are ELL to Title I. This means that states and schools will be held accountable under ESSA for the English language acquisition and school performance of students who are English learners.

Question 24

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972

Answer 24

Title IX allows schools to receive federal funds on the condition the school protects its students from discriminatory practices based on sex. It is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
However, Title IX confers a right of private action, that is, students who are victims of sexual harassment may seek to hold school officials or the district liable for monetary damages through lawsuits under Section 1983 or state law

Question 25

Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education

Answer 25

“damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children” but rather for behavior “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” (p. 1675) that it denies its victims the equal access to education as guaranteed under Title IX.