English French German Portuguese Russian Spanish
You are here Home
Wednesday, 22 May 2013 02:15

Diana Vs State Board Of Ed. (1970), Mattie T. Vs. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979.

WRITTEN_BY  Administrator
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Diana Vs State Board Of Ed. (1970), Mattie T. Vs. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979.

Diana vs. state board of ed. (1970).
The Diana v. state board of education (1970) case challenged the use of tests to place students in educable mentally retarded programs. Diana, a Spanish talking scholar in Monterey County, California, was placed in a mildly mentally retarded students' class. This is because she had a low score on an IQ test given to her in English. Diana attended school in the Soledad Unified school district, in central California. She went through academic challenges in her classes. The district policy at that time had students' being assessment by a school psychologist. This, therefore, happened to Diana as she took the test using the Stanford Binet intelligence test. The results of the test indicated that Diana had mild retardation, and she was consequently put under an educable mentally retarded class. Prior to placement into an educable mentally retarded class, there is referral from general education.The next stage is assessment as well as a recommendation by a school psychologist. The designing of the educable mentally retarded classes focused on teaching social and functional skills. There was little alignment with academic curricula.

The decision by the school resulted to a class action law suit that that challenged the use of certain IQ tests. There was filing of the grievance in federal district court, in opposition to Soledad Unified Scholl District. The case was also filed against state superintendent Wilson Riles and members of the California state board of education. The issue was that there was labeling of Mexican students as educable mentally retarded. The basis of the labeling was on individualized IQ tests written and administered in English. The placement of the students in educable mentally retarded classes, therefore, constituted to discrimination.Another issue was whether there was a violation of the fourteenth amendment rights of the Mexican-American students. The applicable law on this case was the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution. The plaintiffs claimed that the materials on the test for no other reason than language difference. The plaintiffs also claimed that low IQ scores were not a suitable calculate of their intellect. There was a violation of equal protection clause of United States constitution.

This was on the basis that its establishment would ensure that children would be afforded equal protection. This would take place where students did not understand the test resources. The courts orders stipulated that children whose main verbal communication was not English were to be evaluated in their principal lingo. In addition to English, Mexican-American and Chinese –American kids in educable mentally retarded classes were to be retested. Learning education agencies had to submit a plan for aiding for re-entry of educable mentally retarded students back into general education. Turnbull, A. (1998). The court also stipulated that learning education agencies have to clarify uneven depiction of Mexican-American children in exceptional education.

Mattie T. vs. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979.
Mattie T. v. Holladay was a class action lawsuit which argued the presence of insufficient and discriminatory evaluation procedures. These measures led to unsuitable placement of children in exceptional education platforms. The case evidently defined timeline requirements for identification, referral, and evaluation, development of the program and placement of education. Mattie T. also availed responsibilities that school systems had for accountability, requiring explanation program placement recommendations when making eligibility decisions. This is essential when looking at the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's emphasis on placing children in the least restrictive environment.
The court orders the Mississippi state department of education to hire a team of consultants. The consultants were to scrutinize the assessment of the exceptional education needs of kids with disabilities. This had to be accompanied by the development of appropriate individual education programs. The court stipulated that the Mississippi state of department education submits a comprehensive, personal assessment report. The report had to analyze personnel training needs of individuals involved in exceptionaleducation. A written training program which particulars how and when an instruction program would be implemented. The court also mandated the Mississippi state department of education to create an accountability system. The system would have regional screening teams and learning resource centers make program placement recommendations when they make eligibility decisions. The court also ordered data collection that compared enrollment of black and white children in educable mentally retarded classrooms.

Impact of the cases within DeKalb county school district.
The Diana v. state board of education case had various implications within DeKalb county school district. There was the elimination of the IQ test as the only measure of assessment for exceptional education placement. The school district has also ensured that there is increased focus on exceptional needs children who are linguistically diverse. The school district also ensures that it does not deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on the foundation of his or her race or state origin. Federal law requires that district schools ought to provide language assistance services. Hulett, K. (2009). In the school district, knowing firsthand experience of learning a second language is advantageous. This is because it provided experiential comprehending of the stages of language acquisition and proficiency. Teachers who are bilingual in any languages provide some person assistance in the local language of a student. This enables the breaching of content learning barriers more expeditiously.

The school district also provides second language acquisition training for all instructional personnel. The instructional personnel familiarize with strategies for instruction, differentiation and assessment of students who have varying levels of language proficiency. The school district also ensures that there are opportunities for collaborative efforts among teachers for development of lesson plans. This lesson plan sustains progress of both English language aptitude and academic language in the various content areas. All instructional staff ought to get ongoing training with regard to appropriate instructional strategies and interventions for English language learners. This happens so as to facilitate the provision of English language assistance services to students.The DeKalb county school district administers DeKalb county school assessment programs as required by federal and state law. There is also facilitation of DeKalb county schools compliance with the No Child Left Behind act of 2001. This is accompanied by Georgia law relative to learner evaluation and information reporting. There is also interaction with state and federal agencies relative to the assessment program and accountability mandates. The school district handles deals with assessment reports and documents. These include secure test materials, individual student score results as well as school and district data reports. The school district also provides training and guidance in accordance to the assessment program and assessment data. Weishaar, M. K. (2007). There is also facilitation of the accreditation of the DeKalb county school district as well as its centers and schools.

The state of Georgia stipulates requirements of the assessment of all students in its k-12 public schools. Other than the accountability features, assessments avail large quantities of information with regard to the progress of schools and students. Educators are, therefore, able to gain large amounts of data for analysis. This, therefore, helps them in planning and parents are able to benchmark the academic growth of their children. The mission of the assessment program is to ensure that there is successful measurement of student achievement. The assessment program is also able to identify students who have failed to achieve mastery of content. By providing teachers with diagnostic information, school systems are able to identify strengths and weaknesses. This, consequently, enables them to establish priorities in planning educational programs.

The Mattie T. v. Holladay (Mississippi) 1979 case also had an impact on the School district of DeKalb County. The department of exceptional education meets the individual needs of students from ages three to twenty one. These are students who are eligible for exceptional education, as well as related services in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The department provides assistance in the assessment process for determination of exceptional education eligibility. There is the availability of a wide range of services that array from the least limiting to environments that are more restrictive. This usually depends on the needs of the students. The department also provides support to schools and ensures that students with disabilities appropriately access the Georgia performance standards. There is also provision of an exceptional instruction that is determined essential by the individualized education plan. The department of exceptional education also assists scholars with disabilities in increasing academic performance. This is conducted in collaboration with students, schools, families and the community. Wright, P. W. D. (2004).


Hulett, K. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Weishaar, M. K. (2007). Case studies in special education law: No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Wright, P. W. D. (2004). The next wave of special education litigation. Harbor House Law Press.
Turnbull, A. (1998). Free Appropriate Public Education: The Law and Children with Disabilities. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.


Trusted Site Seal SSL Certificate Provider SSL