Introduction
In the Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland case, this party acted as plaintiff.
Rachel Holland and her family.
What was the chief complaint in the case?
The Holland Family wished for their daughter to have her time increased in her general education classroom.
What was the ruling of the court case?
The court ruled in Rachel’s favor. The appropriate placement was full time in general education with supports.
How does this court case contribute to students with disabilities?
The 1994 Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland case resulted in a landmark ruling in favor of the student with disabilities, affirming her right to be educated in a regular classroom. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that Rachel Holland, who had an intellectual disability, should be placed full-time in a general education classroom with appropriate support services.
What law did the defense cite to keep Rachel Holland in her special day class?
In Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Holland (1994), the school district (defense) primarily cited the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., specifically arguing that the child's severe disability meant that a full-time regular classroom placement did not provide an "appropriate" education under the act. The district contended that a mix of special and regular education was required.
The argument for this court case was submitted on?
Aug. 12, 1992
Who was the defendant party? What was their response?
What is, The Sacramento Unified School District. They rejected their request and proposed Holland have divided time between special education class and her general classroom.
A decision on the court case was made on this day
What is Jan. 24, 1994?
Was the outcome of the case in favor for students with disabilities and being more inclusive?
The court established that school districts must prioritize placing children with disabilities in regular classes with supplementary aids and services before considering more restrictive, segregated settings.
What law did the Holland Family cite to expand Rachel's time in the general education classroom?
In Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (often referred to as Holland), the family cited the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), specifically the requirement that children with disabilities be educated in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE) to the maximum extent appropriate.
What court did the District attempt to over rule the 9th district courts ruling?
Who was the Supreme Court?
What was determined by the hearing officer in this case?
It was determined that Rachel benefited from increased time with her regular general education classroom.
How long was it until Holland received her changes to her IEP and services?
What is Several years due to the defenses legal arguments against the first decision.
Was it found that the district's argument was factual?
The court rejected these arguments, finding that the District failed to prove that the special education placement was superior, that the cost estimates were inflated, and that Rachel was not disruptive. The court found the parents' witnesses more credible and determined that the regular classroom, with support, was the appropriate, least restrictive environment.
What was the final decision by the Supreme Court?
To uphold the 9th district courts ruling.
What was Rachel Holland’s measured I.Q.?
44
How long did this case carry on?
This case carried on for 4 years.
What factors did the court take into consideration when deciding appropriate placement?
1. academic benefits
2. Non-academic benefits
3. Effects on teacher
4. Cost to the district.
After the final judgement, what role did this play for future cases with disabilities?
The court adopted a four-part balancing test to determine the least restrictive environment (LRE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), considering academic benefits, non-academic benefits (social/communication skills), effect on the teacher and other students, and cost.
Did IDEA play a role in this case?
Yes IDEA and LRE both played huge roles in this case.
What was the name of the school that Hollands Parents enrolled Rachel.
Shalom Elementary.
What was the closing argument for this case?
The district's closing defense argued that a special education classroom was the "appropriate" placement, claiming that full-time regular classroom placement would be too costly (estimating \(\$109,000\) due to needed aides and training), disruptive to other students, and provided fewer educational benefits.
What was one main statement that solidified Rachel's court outcome?
That Rachel had made significant progress in her IEP goals when placed in a regular classroom at the Shalom School, which proved to be a key piece of evidence.
Did this case affect any current legislation?
Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Holland (1994) solidified the "least restrictive environment" (LRE) mandate under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requiring schools to place students with disabilities in regular classrooms with supplementary aids. It established a key four-factor test still used to determine appropriate placement.
Did the disabilities act play a role in this case?
Yes, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, played a foundational role in Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education v. Holland (1994). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that under IDEA, particularly its "least restrictive environment" (LRE) requirement, Rachel Holland was entitled to be placed in a regular classroom full-time.