BIG HAIR AND BIG

CASES
Special Education Court Cases of the 1980s
 BOARD OF ED. VS ROWLEY
1982
This was a case concerning the interpretation of the Education of All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975. Rowley was a deaf student who’s school would not provide her a
sign language interpreter. Her parents filed the case contenting the violation of the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

(n.d.). Retrieved December 07, 2017, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/ussupct.rowley.htm

 OUTCOME
With an outcome of 6-3 the courts ruled not in favor of
Rowley. The courts stated that it is not required by the public
school to provide sign language services and it was not a
violation of F.A.P.E.
 IRVING SCH. DIST V. TATRO
1984
This was a case that concerned the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
in regards to the difference between “school health services” and “medical services”.
The case was trying to decipher whether or not a student from Texas with spina bifida
should receive catheterization services during class hours.

Umpstead, R. R. (2015, July 12). Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. Retrieved December 07, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Irving-Independent-School-District-v-Tatro
 OUTCOME
With an outcome of 9-0 the courts ruled in favor of Tatro. The
courts stated that the district must provide catheterization
services to Tatro during school hours. This was the first case
that the courts had to decide the difference between “school
health services” and “medical services”.
 BURLINGTON SCH. COMMITTEE
V. MASS. BD. OF ED.
1985
This was a case that concerned the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
in regards to the parents’ right to participate in the creation of IEPs for their children
and to challenge proposed IEPs if they disagreed with any of their content. In addition,
the EAHCA gave courts the authority to grant whatever relief they determined was
appropriate.

Rehberg, M. L. (2014, September 23). School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education. Retrieved December 07, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/School-Committee-of-
the-Town-of-Burlington-v-Massachusetts-Department-of-Education
 OUTCOME
With an outcome of 9-0 the courts ruled in favor of the parents
could be reimbursed for unilaterally placing their child in a
private school after they disagreed with the individualized
education plan (IEP) that public school officials had designed.
 HONIG V. DOE
1988
This was a case that concerned the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
in regards to indefinitely suspending a student for violent and disruptive behavior that
was related to the student’s disability. The case was filed because the suspension
violated the “stay put” provisions act and the student needed to stay in their placement.

Steketee, A. M. (2016, May 20). Honig v. Doe. Retrieved December 07, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Honig-v-Doe
 OUTCOME
With an outcome of 6-2 the courts ruled in favor of Doe and
stated that the California school board had violated the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This also
affirmed that the state must provide services directly to the
students when the school board fails to do so.