Praxis Case Law

Front 1

Diana v. State Board of Ed. (1970)

Back 1

School districts of California were to test children in their primary language, use nonverbal tests, & extensive supportive data

Front 2

Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)

Back 2

The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson has no place in public education

Front 3

PARC v. Commonwealth of PA 1971)

Back 3

Placement in regular public school class is preferable to placement in a special public school class & placement in a special class is preferable to placement in any other program of education

Front 4

Debra P. v. Turlington (1979)

Back 4

Established 2 major requirements for diploma sanction testing: adequate notice (students be told what graduation test will cover several years before test is implemented) & curricular validity (schools are teacvhing what is being tested)

Front 5

Larry P. v. Riles (1972)

Back 5

Addressed overrepresentation of minorities in MMR categories, banned use of IQ tests w/ AA, ordered elimination of overrepresention of minorities in EMR

Front 6

PASE v. Hannon (1980)

Back 6

Established that standardized intelligence tests are valid when used in multifaceted, multidisciplinary evaluations

Front 7

Rowley v. Board of Ed. (1982)

Back 7

Found that individualized decisions based on unique needs of each child were essential under federal law. ie schools who let sld automatically determine placement are in violation of federal law.

Front 8

Tatro v. Irving Independent School District (1984)

Back 8

If specially trained personnel (pt, ot, speech) are required to assist a student with a disability to participate in inclusive program, those personnel must be hired.

Front 9

Hobson v. Hansen (1967)

Back 9

Ability grouping as practiced in the DC school system is a denial of equal opportunity that contravenes 5th ammendment and the fundamental premise of the track system. Court ruled track system must be terminated. Ruled against use of IQ for tracking purposes.

Front 10

Guadelupe v. Tempe (1978)

Back 10

Bilingual education not required under Constitution or 1964 Civil Rights Act. Providing extra English language assistance was adequate means of satisfying Lau v. Nichols.

Front 11

Tarasoff v. Regents (1976)

Back 11

When a therapist determines or should determine that client presents a serious danger of violence to another, there is an obligation to use reasonable care to protect intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may call to warn intended victim, notify police, or take whatever steps necessary

Front 12

Pesce and Morton (1987)

Back 12

Held that the protection of students outweighs the right to confidentiality in the psychologist-student relationship

Front 13

Oberti v. Board of Ed. (1992)

Back 13

Schools are required to make greater efforts to mainstream disabled students or explain why not. District bears burden of proving compliance with mainstreaming requirement of IDEA.

Front 14

Mills v. Board of Ed. (1972)

Back 14

placement in a regular school class with related services is preferable to placement in special school class. Children with disabilities other than MR have right to appropriate education regardless of the degree of mental, physical, or emotional disability.

Front 15

Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Ed. (1989)

Back 15

Regular education placement is appropriate if a child with a disability can receive a satisfactory education, even if it is not the best academic setting for the child. Non-academic benefits must also be considered.

Front 16

Luke S. & Hans S. v. Nix et al. (1982)

Back 16

Pre-referral intervention, CBM, staff training for assessment

Front 17

Jose P. v. Ambach (1983)

Back 17

Assessment and placement in a timely manner

Front 18

Marshall v. Georgia (1985)

Back 18

Grouping based on achievement was acceptable; benefits in achievement due to grouping was demonstrated by the schools. (Difference from Hobson v. Hansen-- tracking based on achievement, not IQ)

Front 19

Merriken v. Cressman (1973)

Back 19

The fact that students are juveniles does not invalidate their constitutional right to privacy.

Front 20

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District

Back 20

Decision allowed govt. to pay public employees to work in parochial schools as long as their presence had no impact of the reglious environment itself. School had to provide ASL interpreter to deaf child.