Which one of the following is the major advantage of in school suspension over out of school suspension as a consequence for serious and chronic misbehavior quizlet?

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

(1954)
ISSUE: Educational Segregation

Segregation of students by race ruled unconstitutional; children deprived of equal opportunity. Effectively ended "separate but equal" schools for white and black pupils.
*Used as a precedent for arguing that children children with disabilities cannot be excluded from a public education.

Hobson v. Hansen

(1967)
ISSUE: Classifying Students

*Ability grouping or "tracking" of students on the basis of nationally normed tests, which were found to be biased, held to be unconstitutional.
*Tracking systems discriminated against poor and minority children, thus denying them an equal educational opportunity.
*Equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment violated.

Diana v. State Board of Education

(1970)
ISSUE: Class Placement

*Linguistically different students much be tested in their primary language as well as English.
*Students cannot be placed in special education classes on the basis of IQ tests that are culturally biased.
*Verbal test items to be revised so as to reflect students' cultural heritage.
*Group administered IQ tests cannot be used to place children.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

(1972)
ISSUE: Right to Education

*State must guarantee a free public education to all children with mental retardation ages 6-21 regardless of degree of impairment or associated disabilities.
*Students to be placed in the most integrated environment.
*Definition of educational decisions affecting their children.
*State to engage in extensive efforts to locate and serve ("child-find") all students with mental retardation.
*Preschool services to be provided to youngsters with mental retardation if local school district serves preschoolers who are not retarded.

Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia

(1972)
ISSUE: Right to Education

*Extended the Pennsylvania decision to include all children with disabilities.
*Specifically established the constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to a public education regardless of their functional level.
*Students have a right to a "constructive education" matched to their needs, including specialized instruction.
*Presumed absence of fiscal resources is not a valid reason for failing to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities.
*Elaborate due process safeguards established to protect the rights of the child, including parental notification of pending initial evaluation, reassignment, or planned termination of special services.

Larry P. v. Riles

(1972, 1979)
ISSUE: Class placement

*A landmark case parallel to the Diana suite. African American students could not be placed in classes for children with mild mental retardation solely on the basis of intellectual assessments found to be culturally and racially biased.
*the court instructed school officials to develop an assessment process that would not discriminate against minority children.
*Failure to comply with this order resulted in a 1979 ruling that completely prohibited the use of IQ tests for placing African American students in classes for children with mental retardation.
*Ruling only applies to the state of California.

Wyatt v. Stickney

(1972)
ISSUE: Right to treatment

*Individuals with mental retardation residing in a state institution have a right to appropriate treatment.
*Absence of meaningful education reduces opportunity for a habilitation and thus may be considered unlawful detention.
*State mandated to ensure a therapeutic environment for residential population.

Stuart v. Nappi

(1978)
*Expulsion of a pupil with disabilities for disciplinary reasons without due process was disallowed.
*Expulsion was considered a change in placement and a denial of the opportunity for an appropriate education.
*School authorities, however, can temporarily suspend students with disabilities who are disruptive.

Armstrong v. Kline

(1980)
ISSUE: Extended School Year

*State's refusal to pay for schooling in excess of 180 days for pupils with severe disabilities is a violation of their rights to an appropriate education as required by PL94-142.
*The court found that some children with disabilities will regress significantly during summer recess and have longer recoupment periods; thus, they are denied an appropriate education if not provided with a year-round education.

Tatro v. State of Texas

(1980)
ISSUE: Related Services

*U.S. Supreme Court held that catheterization qualified as a related service under PL94-142.
*Catheterization was not considered an exempted medical procedure, as it could be performed by a health care aide or school nurse.
*Court further stipulated that only those services that allow student to benefit from a special education qualify as related services.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

(1982)
ISSUE: Appropriate Education

*First U.S. Supreme Court Interpretation of PL94-142.
*Court addressed the issue of what constitutes an "appropriate" education for a student with hearing impairments making satisfactory educational progress.
*Supreme Court ruled that an appropriate education does not necessarily mean an education that will allow for the maximum possible achievement; rather, students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn.
*Parents' request for a sign language interpreter, therefore, was denied.
*An appropriate education is not synonymous with an optimal education experience.

Smith v. Robinson

(1984)
ISSUE: Recovery of Attorney Fees

*U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parents cannot be reimbursed for legal expenses under PL94-142.
*Issues subsequently addressed by Congress, which enacted PL99-372 permitting such payment.
*Court also stipulated the claims cannot be filed simultaneously under PL94-142 and Section 504 of PL93-112; when available, IDEA is to be the exclusive avenue.

Honig v. Doe

(1988)
ISSUE: Exclusion from school

*Children with special needs whose behavior is a direct result of their disability cannot be expelled from school for misbehavior.
*If behavior leading to expulsion is not a consequence of the exceptionality, pupil may be expelled.
*Short-term suspension from school is interpreted as a charge in pupil's individualized education program (IEP).

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education

(1989)
ISSUE: Class placement

*Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that segregated class was an appropriate placement for a student with Down syndrome.
*Preference for integrated placement viewed as secondary to the need for an appropriate education. Court established a two-prong test for determining compliance with the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate for students with severe disabilities.
*First, it must be determined if a pupil can make satisfactory progress and achieve educational benefit in the general education classroom through curriculum modification and the use of supplementary aids and services.
*Second, it must be determined whether the pupil has been integrated to the maximum extent appropriate.

Timothy W. v. Rochester (New Hamshire) School District

(1989)
ISSUE: Right to education

*Reaffirmation of the principle of zero-reject education. First Circuit court of Appeals established entitlement to a free and appropriate public education regardless of the severity of the child's disability.
*IDEA interpreted to mean all students; pupil need not demonstrate an ability to benefit from a special education.
*Education defined broadly to include instruction in functional skills.

Carter v. Florence County School District Four

(1991)
ISSUE: IEP goals, private school costs

*Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an IEP goal of four months' progress in reading during the school years was insufficient to allow the pupil to achieve academic progress.
*Absence of meaningful growth seen as evidence of an inappropriate IEP and thus failure to provide an appropriate education.
*Case was eventually heart on a related issue by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 (Florence County School District Four v. Carter).
*The Court ruled that, because of the school district's failure to comply with IDEA, the student's parents were eligible to receive reimbursement for unilaterally enrolling their daughter in a nonaccredited private residential school as long as the school was providing an appropriate education.

Oberti v. Board of Education of Borough of Clementon School District

(1992)
ISSUE: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

*Placement in a general education classroom with supplementary aids and services must be offered to a student with disabilities prior to considering more segregated placements.
*Pupil cannot be excluded from a general education classroom solely because curriculum, services, or other practices would require modification.
*A decision to exclude a learner from the general education classroom necessitates justification and documentation.
*Clear judicial preference for educational integration established.

Agostini v. Felton

(1997)
ISSUE: Provision of services

*U.S. Supreme court reversed a long-standing ruling banning the delivery of publicly funded educational services to students enrolled in private schools.
*Interpreted to mean that special educators can now provide services to children in parochial schools.

Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

(1999)
ISSUE: Related Services

*U.S. Supreme Court expanded and clarified the concept of related services.
*Affirmed that intensive and continuous school health care services necessary for student to attend school, if not performed by a physician, qualify as related services.

Schaffer v. Weast

(2005)
ISSUE: Burden of Proof

*A U.S. Supreme Court ruling addressing the issue of whether the parent(s) or school district bears the burden of proof in a due process hearing.
*This specific question before the Court was whether the parent(s), acting on behalf of their son or daughter, must prove that their child's individualized education program (IEP) is inappropriate or whether the school district must prove that the IEP is appropriate.
*The court ruled that the burden of proof is placed upon the party seeking relief.

Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

(2006)
ISSUE: Recovery of fees

*At issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case is whether or not parents are able to recover the professional fee of an educational consultant (lay advocate) who provided services during legal proceedings.
*Court ruled that parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of experts because only attorney fees are addressed in IDEA.

Winkelman v. Parma City School District

(2007)
ISSUE: Parental rights

*One of the more significant Supreme Court rulings. The court, by unanimous vote, affirmed that the right of parents to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases.
*Ruling seen as an expansion of parental involvement and the definition of a free and appropriate public education. Decisions also interpreted to mean that IDEA conveys enforceable rights to parents as well as children.

Forest Grove School District v. T.A.

(2009)
ISSUE: Tuition Reimbursement

*A Supreme Court decision involving tuition reimbursement for a student with learning disabilities and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, as well as depression who was never declared eligible for a special education and never received services from a school district.
*Parents removed their child from school and unilaterally enrolled the child in a private school.
*Subsequently they sought reimbursement from the school district for expenses.
*In a 6-3 decision, the court found that IDEA authorizes reimbursement from private special education services when a public school fails to provide a free and appropriate education and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the student previously received special education services from public school.

Which one of the following is the major reason why assigning extra schoolwork is not an appropriate punishment for classroom misbehavior?

Which is one of the most effective methods to increase productive learning behaviors?

Which of the following are advantages of the index card system?

Which one of the following is consistent with the textbook's recommendation for taking improvement into account in assigning final class grades?