Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education - Synopsis

RUNNING HEAD: Synopsis
Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education - Synopsis
Customer Inserts Name Here
Customer Inserts Course Name Here
Customer Inserts Instructor`s Name Here
Customer Inserts Date Here
Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc335933438 \h 3Discussion of the Case PAGEREF _Toc335933439 \h 3Implications of the Case Holding PAGEREF _Toc335933440 \h 4Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc335933441 \h 4
Introduction
The Burlington case was important in terms of the precedent it set for subsequent cases for children with disabilities and the rights that parents have in the IEP process. The case derives from the basic right of free education granted to children, and indicates that children with special needs too have the same right.
However the issue with special children is that they have special educational needs that all basic schools cannot fulfil. The rights that parents have with regards to this issue as well as the reimbursement policies are given in this case, and are discussed profoundly along with appeals in order to solidify the concept lying behind the holding.It also brings to light the responsibility of local authorities to provide procedural safeguards through which parents can get their free and appropriate education for their children.
Through the decisions taken during the three appeals, the objective of this law has been reaffirmed, which is to provide free and appropriate education to special children, and the Congress has no intentions of creating unnecessary hindrances. Therefore reimbursement to parents for paying an adequate IEP is due on the school district.
Discussion of the Case
The course of the final holding on the case was that initially, the Panicos went to the BSEA with the decision that the school district would pay the expenses for the Caroll school which was deemed appropriate for the child`s needs, in concord with the parents actions. However, the school district did not reimburse the parents, and an appeal was taken t...