|
The Special Ed Advocate newsletter
It's Unique ... and Free! |
|
2023
Training Programs |
Mar. 23 - Anchorage, AK
Mar. 30 - Long Island, NY
Apr. 11+12 - Virginia (via Zoom)
Apr. 20 - Cleveland, OH
Apr. 24+25 - Southern CA (via Zoom)
Sept. 14 - Hill AFB UT
Sept. 28 - Hartford, CT
Sept. 30 - Dallas, TX
Full Schedule
|
Wrightslaw |
Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap |
Books & Training |
Wrightslaw Store
Advocate's Store
Student Bookstore
Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
Military Discounts
Student Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders |
Advocacy Library |
Articles
Cool Tools
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Short Course Series
Success Stories
Tips
|
Law Library |
Articles
Caselaw
Fed Court Complaints
IDEA 2004
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504
|
Topics |
Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
American Indian
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention (Part C)
Eligibility
Episodic, such as
Allergies, Asthma,
Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc
ESSA
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE / Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based Instruction
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Restraints / Seclusion and Abuse
Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education |
Resources & Directories |
Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources Directories
Disability Groups
International
State DOEs
State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
Legal Terms
Assessment Terms
Best School Websites |
|
|
Supreme
Court Says,
"Congress Intended to Open the Door to All Qualified Children"
Print
this page
On
March 3, 1999, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a favorable decision in
Garret
F. v. Cedar Rapids.
In the 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts to provide nursing services
if such services are necessary for the disabled child to receive an education.
Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote:
"Respondent Garret F. is a friendly, creative, and intelligent
young man. When Garret was four years old, his spinal column was
severed in a motorcycle accident. Though paralyzed from the neck
down, his mental capacities were unaffected. He is able to speak,
to control his motorized wheelchair through use of a puff and suck
straw, and to operate a computer with a device that responds to
head movements. Garret is currently a student in the Cedar Rapids
Community School District (District), he attends regular classes
in a typical school program, and his academic performance has been
a success. Garret is, however, ventilator dependent, and therefore
requires a responsible individual nearby to attend to certain physical
needs while he is in school."
"This
case is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will
be assured, not the level of education that a school must finance
once access is attained. It is undisputed that the services at issue
must be provided if Garret is to remain in school."
"Under
the statute, our precedent and the purposes of the IDEA, the district
must fund such related services to help guarantee that students
like Garret are integrated into the public schools."
"Congress
intended to open the door of public education to all qualified children
and required participating states to educate handicapped children
with non-handicapped children whenever possible.''
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin
Scalia, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined
Justice Stevens in the decision for Garret.
Two Justices, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy, dissented. The dissenting
opinion was written by Justice Thomas.
Garret and his family are delighted with the decision. Garret's mother,
Charlene Frey, hoped that the justices would hold that all students with
disabilities can and should have access to public school.
When the school district appealed the lower courts' decisions, she said,
"We are going to stick with this, not only because we feel strongly
about this issue, but so that no other child or family ever has to go
through the stress and emotional toil we have endured fighting the school
system on disability access."
You can download the decision in Cedar
Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. from the Caselaw
Section of the Law Library.
Listen to the Oral Argument in the case (MP3 download)
What
Are Related Services?
|
|