Educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment:A slippery slope for educators

Journal of Educational Administration

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 397-410

  Daniel, Philip T k ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case law; Education; Inclusion; Law; Law courts; Policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986131166     PISSN: 09578234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/09578239710184556     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. USCA §§ 1400-1485 (West, 1996.
2. Watson v.City of Cambridge, 32 N.E. 864 (Mass., 893).
3. Beattie v. Board of Education, 172 N.W. 153 (Wis., 919).
4. Department of Public Welfare v.Hass, 154 N.E.2d 265 (Ill., 958).
5. Handel, R.C., “The role of the advocate in securing the handicapped child's right to an effective minimal education”, Ohio State Law Journal, Vol 36, 1975, p. 351.
6. Act of May 18, 1965, ch. 584, 1965 N.C. ess. Laws 641 (amending N.C. Gen Stat. §§ 115-65 (1963)).
7. Sindelar, K., “How and why the law has failed: an historical analysis of services for the retarded in North Carolina and a prescription for change”, Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 48, 1985, p. 125.
8. Note, “State response to the Education for all Handicapped Children's Act of 1975”, Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 48, 1985, p. 275 (contains an examination of state statutory law governing education for disabled children).
9. Neal, D. and Kirp, D.L., “The allure of legalization reconsidered: the case of special education”, Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 48, 1985, p. 68.
10. Hill, K.D., “Legal conflicts in special education: how competing paradigms in the Education for All Handicapped Child's Act create litigation”, University of Detroit Law Review, Vol. 64, 1986, p. 132.
11. Stick, R.S., “Comment, the handicapped child has a right to an appropriate education”, Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 55, 1976, p. 637.
12. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v.Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257, 1258 (E.Pa, 1971).
13. Gottlieb, L.E., “Safeguarding the handicapped child's right to a free appropriate public education in Pennsylvania”, Dickinson Law Review, Vol. 88, 1983, p. 154.
14. F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
15. F. Supp. 307 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
16. F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
17. F. Supp. 875 (D.D.C. 1972).
18. The United States Supreme Court would later rule that PARC andills, which admittedly influenced Congress’ formulation of IDEA, had imposed no standard of education beyond access.
19. Board of Education v.Rowley, 458 US 176, 192-94 (1982).
20. US 483 (1954.
21. Sperry, D., Daniel, P.T.K., Huefner, D.S. and Gee, E.G., Education Law in the Public Schools: A Compendium, Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Boston, MA, 1997 (forthcoming).
22. Kirp, D.L., “Schools as sorters”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 121, 1973, pp. 747-51.
23. McCarthy, M., “The handicapped child's right to an ‘appropriate’ education program”, Education Law Reporter, Vol. 77, 1983, p. 1.
24. CFR § 300.17 (West, 1996.
25. See, e.g., Osborne, A., “The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: a new era”, Education Law Reporter, Vol. 88, 1994, p. 541.
26. See, e.g., McCarthy, M., “Inclusion of children with disabilities: is it required?”, Education Law Reporter, Vol. 95, 1995, p. 823.
27. Zirkel, P. and Richardson, S., “The ‘explosion’ in education litigation”, Education Law Reporter, Vol. 53, 1989, pp. 778-81.
28. See, e.g.Burlington School Comm'n v.assachusetts Department of Education, 471 US 359 (1985) (School Commission of Burlington filed suit against the State and parents of learning disabled child seeking to reverse order of Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals ordering private school placement of disabled child).
29. Board of Education v.Ambach, 612 F. Supp. 230 (EDNY, 1985) (board of education filed suit under IDEA challenging determination of the New York State Education Commissioner that the school district was liable for child's tuition at private school until its placement recommendation was confirmed as proper).
30. Norris v.Massachusetts Department of Education, 529 F. Supp. 759 (D. ass, 1981) (members of a city school committee sued the Massachusetts Department of Education and parents of disabled student pursuant to placement decision under IDEA).
31. F.2d 1058 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 464 US 864 (1983.
32. F.2d 1063 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 464 US 864 (1983.
33. Schuldt v.Mankato Independent School District, 937 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. enied, 112 S.Ct. 937 (1992).
34. Devries v.Fairfax County School Board, 882 F.2d 1058 (4th Cir. 1989).
35. F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
36. F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1989).
37. F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1989).
38. F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2679 (1994.
39. F.3d 1404 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2679 (1994.
40. F.3d 1404-1405 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2679 (1994.
41. F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1994).
42. F.2d 1220-21 (3d Cir. 1994).
43. F.2d 1221-22 (3d Cir. 1994).
44. Clyde K. ex. rel. Ryan K. v. Puyallup School District, 35 F.3d 1396 (9th Cir. 1994).
45. Clyde K. ex. rel. Ryan K. v.Puyallup School District, 35 F.3d 1402, (9th Cir. 1994).
46. F.3d 689 (5th Cir., 1996.
47. F.3d 693 (5th Cir., 1996.
48. F.3d 694 (5th Cir., 1996.
49. IDELR 1457 (OSERS) (1994.
50. Congressional Record E2-01 (1986.
51. Congressional Record S9161-02 (1989.
52. Congression Record S8402-02 (1995.