Search results
The District now claims that it will lose up to $190,764 in state special education funding if Rachel is not enrolled in a special education class at least 51% of the day. However, the District has not sought a waiver pursuant to California Education Code Sec. 56101.
Jan 24, 1994 · The District now claims that it will lose up to $190,764 in state special education funding if Rachel is not enrolled in a special education class at least 51% of the day. However, the District has not sought a waiver pursuant to California Education Code § 56101.
- I. [2] Facts and Prior Proceedings
- Educational Benefits
- Non-Academic Benefits
- Effect on The Teacher and Children in The Regular Class
- Cost
- II. [22] Jurisdiction
- III. [24] Standards of Review
- A. Mootness
- B. Mainstreaming Requirements of The Idea 1. The Statute
- Burden of Proof
Rachel Holland is now 11 years old and is mentally retarded. She was tested with an I.Q. of 44. She attended a variety of special education programs in the District from 1985-89. Her parents sought to increase the time Rachel spent in a regular classroom, and in the fall of 1989, they requested that Rachel be placed full-time in a regular classroom...
The district court found the first factor, educational benefits to Rachel, weighed in favor of placing her in a regular classroom. Each side presented expert testimony which is summarized in the margin.The court noted that the District's evidence focused on Rachel's limitations but did not establish that the educational opportunities available thro...
The district court next found that the second factor, non-academic benefits to Rachel, also weighed in favor of placing her in a regular classroom. The court noted that the Hollands' evidence indicated that Rachel had developed her social and communications skills as well as her self-confidence from placement in a regular class, while the District'...
The district court next addressed the issue of whether Rachel had a detrimental effect on others in her regular classroom. The court looked at two aspects: (1) whether there was detriment because the child was disruptive, distracting or unruly, and (2) whether the child would take up so much of the teacher's time that the other students would suffe...
Finally, the district court found that the District had not offered any persuasive or credible evidence to support its claim that educating Rachel in a regular classroom with appropriate services would be significantly more expensive than educating her in the District's proposed setting. The District contended that it would cost $109,000 to educate...
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The appropriateness of a special education placement under the IDEA is reviewed de novo. W.G. v. Board of Trustees, 960 F.2d 1479, 1483 (9th Cir. 1992); Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1314 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court's findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 199...
It has been over a year since the district court rendered its decision. The court concluded that the appropriate placement at that time was full-time in a regular classroom. It noted that Rachel and the educational demands on her may change and that the IDEA had foreseen such changes in providing for an annual IEP review. This court cannot determin...
The IDEA provides that each state must establish: 20 U.S.C. § 1412(5)(B). This provision sets forth Congress's preference for educating children with disabilities in regular classrooms with their peers. Department of Educ. v. Katherine D., 727 F.2d 809, 817 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1117, 105 S.Ct. 2360, 86 L.Ed.2d 260 (1985); see als...
There is a conflict regarding which party bears the burden of proof. The Third Circuit has held that a school district has the initial burden of justifying its educational placement at the administrative level and the burden in the district court if the student is challenging the agency decision. See Oberti, 995 F.2d at 1219. Other circuits have he...
Jan 24, 1994 · The Sacramento Unified School District ("the District") timely appeals the district court 's judgment in favor of Rachel Holland (" Rachel ") and the California State Department of Education.
In Sacramento City School Dist. v. Rachel H, the Sacramento Unified School District appealed the district court's judgment favoring Rachel Holland, a mentally retarded 11-year-old with an IQ of 44, and the California State Department of Education.
Aug 12, 1993 · The Sacramento Unified School District ("the District") timely appeals the district court's judgment in favor of Rachel Holland ("Rachel") and the California State Department of Education. The court found that the appropriate placement for Rachel under the Individuals with Disabilities Act ("IDEA") was full-time in a regular second grade ...
People also ask
What if Rachel is not enrolled in a special education class?
Does the Rachel H test favor students who are marginalized?
Should California students be included in the least restrictive environment test?
Did Rachel H improve California's inclusion rates and shameful racial disparities?
Does Brown v Board of education apply to children with disabilities?
What does California teach us about segregated schools?
Oct 20, 2022 · We argue that the Rachel H. test has favored students with the means to unilaterally secure inclusive placements and pursue litigation over those from marginalized communities languishing in restrictive placements.
Endless campground choices await. Wake up to breathtaking views. of nature. Learn all you need to know about camping in California State Parks.
