(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

Assignment: Psychology Court Case Essay Assignment: Psychology Court Case Essay Assignment: Psychology Court Case Essay Read over the other attachment uploaded which is Daniel R.R. v. Board of Education case. Then, create a court case review form for the Daniel R.R. v. Board of Education case which includes the following numbered elements: . Issues: In this section, list the points of contention which the courts have been asked to decide. That is, what are the basic issues dividing the parties, for which they seek a resolution? You may find it best to phrase this as a series of questions that the parties have raised. . Testimony points: Describe the legal precedents which each side has cited as relevant to their case, and which seem to be at the heart of the issue. Revisit the facts of the case as relate to the legal precedents raised. This will probably be one of the lengthier sections of your analysis. . Other cases cited: Separately for plaintiff and defendant, simply list the names of other legal cases which each side has cited as supporting their legal claim. . Decision/Findings by the court or hearing officer. What was their ruling? . What are the implications of this case for you in your current or future position? What suggestion would you have for the class with regard to the way in which this case should affect policy and procedure within their school districts? This is the time to offer the most thoughtful part of the analysis, in which you apply the court decision, and rationale behind it, to your own practice as an administrator, school psychologist or other decision-maker in a district. I read this part carefully, as there are clear connections you should make: if you miss obvious applications, you’ll lose points! Assignment Instructions: 3 4 5 6 Read over the other attachment uploaded which is Daniel R.R. v. Board of Education case. Then, create a court case review form for the Daniel R.R. v. Board of Education case which includes the following numbered elements: . Issues: In this section, list the points of contention which the courts have been asked to decide. That is, what are the basic issues dividing the parties, for which they seek a resolution? You may find it best to phrase this as a series of questions that the parties have raised. . Testimony points: Describe the legal precedents which each side has cited as relevant to their case, and which seem to be at the heart of the issue. Revisit the facts of the case as relate to the legal precedents raised. This will probably be one of the lengthier sections of your analysis. . Other cases cited: Separately for plaintiff and defendant, simply list the names of other legal cases which each side has cited as supporting their legal claim. . Decision/Findings by the court or hearing officer. What was their ruling? . What are the implications of this case for you in your current or future position? What suggestion would you have for the class with regard to the way in which this case should affect policy and procedure within their school districts? This is the time to offer the most thoughtful part of the analysis, in which you apply the court decision, and rationale behind it, to your own practice as an administrator, school psychologist or other decision-maker in a district. I read this part carefully, as there are clear connections you should make: if you miss obvious applications, you’ll lose points! . 1 2 A typical analysis will probably run you 3-4 pages, double-spaced. Negotiation Competition file:///C:/Users/jpersing/Desktop/Faculty Space/persingj/danielrrvsboe.htm DANIEL R.R. v. STATE BD. OF EDUC., 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989) DANIEL R.R., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 88-1279. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. June 12, 1989. Reed Martin, Austin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant. Sam Sparks, El Paso, Tex., for defendants. Steven L. Hughes, El Paso, Tex., for El Paso Independent School Dist. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Before THORNBERRY, GEE and POLITZ, Circuit Judges. GEE, Circuit Judge: [1] Plaintiffs in this action, a handicapped boy and his parents, Assignment Psychology Court Case Essay urge that a local school district failed to comply with the Education of the Handicapped Act.[fn*] Specifically, they maintain that a school district’s refusal to place the child in a class with nonhandicapped students violates the Act. The district court disagreed and, after a careful review of the record, we affirm the district court. [2] I. Background [3] A. General [4] In 1975, on a finding that almost half of the handicapped children in the United States were receiving an inadequate education or none at all, Congress passed the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA or Act). See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(b) (West 1988 Supp.); S.Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1975), reprinted in 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1425, 1432. Before passage of the Act, as the Supreme Court has noted, many handicapped children suffered under one of two equally ineffective approaches to their educational needs: either they were excluded entirely from public education or they were deposited in regular education classrooms with no assistance, left to fend for themselves in an environment inappropriate for their needs. Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Psychology Court Case Essay Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 191, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3043, 73 L.Ed.2d 690, 702 (1982) (citing H.R.Rep. No. 332, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1975); S.Rep. No. 168, 94th Cong., 1st. Sess. 8 (1975) 1975 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1432). To entice state and local school officials to improve upon these inadequate methods of educating children with special needs, Congress created the EHA, having as its purpose providing handicapped children access to public education and requiring states to adopt procedures that will result in individualized consideration of and instruction for each handicapped child. Id. at 192, 102 S.Ct. at 3043, 73 L.Ed.2d at 703. [5] The Act is largely procedural. It mandates a “free appropriate public education” for each handicapped child and sets forth procedures designed to ensure that each child’s education meets that requirement. 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1412(1) and 1415(a)-(e). School 1 of 16 1/13/2020, 1:47 PM Negotiation Competition file:///C:/Users/jpersing/Desktop/Faculty Space/persingj/danielrrvsboe.htm officials are required to determine the appropriate placement for each child and must develop an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) that tailors the child’s education to his individual needs. The child’s parents are involved at all stages of the process. See generally § 1415(b). In addition, the Act requires that handicapped children be educated in regular education classrooms, with nonhandicapped students – as opposed to special education classrooms with handicapped students only – to the greatest extent appropriate. § 1412(5)(B). Educating a handicapped child in a regular education classroom with nonhandicapped children is familiarly known as “mainstreaming,” and the mainstreaming requirement is the source of the controversy between the parties before us today. [6] B. Particular [7] Daniel R. is a six year old boy who was enrolled, at the time this case arose, in the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD). A victim of Downs Syndrome, Daniel is mentally retarded and speech impaired. By September 1987, Daniel’s developmental age was between two and three years and his communication skills were slightly less than those of a two year old. [8] In 1985, Daniel’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. R., enrolled him in EPISD’s Early Childhood Program, a half-day program devoted entirely to special education. Daniel completed one academic year in the Early Childhood Program. Before the 1986-87 school year began, Mrs. R. requested a new placement that would provide association with nonhandicapped children. Mrs. R. wanted EPISD to place Daniel in Pre-kindergarten – a half-day, regular education class. Mrs. R. conferred with Joan Norton, the Pre-kindergarten instructor, proposing that Daniel attend the half-day Pre-kindergarten class in addition to the half-day Early Childhood class. As a result, EPISD’s Admission, Review and Dismissal (ARD) Committee met and designated the combined regular and special education program as Daniel’s placement. [9] This soon proved unwise, and not long into the school year Mrs. Norton began to have reservations about Daniel’s presence in her class. Daniel did not participate without constant, individual attention from the teacher or her aide, and failed to master any of the skills Mrs. Norton was trying to teach her students. Modifying the Pre-kindergarten curriculum and her teaching methods sufficiently to reach Daniel would have required Mrs. Norton to modify the curriculum almost beyond recognition. In November 1986, the ARD Committee met again, concluded that Pre-kindergarten was inappropriate for Daniel, and decided to change Daniel’s placement. Under the new placement, Daniel would attend only the special education, Early Childhood class; would eat lunch in the school cafeteria, with nonhandicapped children, three days a week if his mother was present to supervise him; and would have contact with nonhandicapped students during recess. Believing that the ARD had improperly shut the door to regular education for Daniel, Mr. and Mrs. R. exercised their right to a review of the ARD Committee’s decision. [10] As the EHA requires, Mr. and Mrs. R. appealed to a hearing officer who upheld the ARD Committee’s decision. See § 1415(b)(2). After a hearing which consumed five days of testimony and produced over 2500 pages of transcript, the hearing officer concluded that Daniel could not participate in the Pre-kindergarten class without constant attention from the instructor because the curriculum was beyond his abilities. In addition, the hearing officer found, Daniel was receiving little educational benefit from Pre-kindergarten and was disrupting the class – not in the ordinary sense of the term, but in the sense that his needs absorbed most of the teacher’s time and diverted too much of her attention away from the rest of the class. Finally, the instructor would have to downgrade 90 to 100 percent 2 of 16 1/13/2020, 1:47 PM Negotiation Competition file:///C:/Users/jpersing/Desktop/Faculty Space/persingj/danielrrvsboe.htm of the Pre-kindergarten curriculum to bring it to a level that Daniel could master. Order Now