Brittney Klauser EDPSY685 11/25/13

 13 th Amendment  14 th Amendment Section Education is a property right  504 of the Rehabilitation act of 1973

 Hobson v. Hansen (Jacob, S. et al., 2011) First to challenge the disproportionate assignment of minorities to lower ability tracks Violation of the 14 th Amendment  Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff  Larry P. v. Riles (Reschley, D. J., et al., 1988) Claimed IQ tests were biased that using them for placement was discrimination Violated students’ civil rights and violated section 504  Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff

 Class action suit involving 45 African American Children  Two causes for the action: Use of achievement grouping results in intra- school racial segregation  Violation of the 13 th and 14 th amendment African American children in Georgia are assigned to EMR programs in a discriminatory manner  Violation of the 13 th and 14 th amendment and Section 504

 Court held that ability grouping that results in within-school segregation is permissible IF the district can demonstrate that the grouping remedies past segregation by providing better educational opportunities  Court ruled in favor of the defendants

 Random sample of African American and white students from Marshall v. Georgia Found to be the same on most variables Slightly greater impairment in white children One student was misclassified Problems with pre-placement evaluations

 Simmons v. Hooks (1994) Plaintiff claimed discrimination and segregation due to race through ability grouping in the school Marshall v. Georgia was cited in defense of the defendant The court upheld the previous ruling of Marshall v. Georgia

 IQ testing vs. skill acquisition  Rigid vs. flexible groups  Lowered vs. enhanced educational opportunities

 Achievement grouping is not he primary variable in school effectiveness  Mixed-age grouping based on achievement is effective  When is equity achievement?

 Is labeling African American children as having a learning disability advantageous? (Gold & Richards, 2012)  Is the overrepresentation of African American children in special education a persisting problem? (Patton, 1998)  How does this apply to us as school psychologists and clinical practitioners?

 Overrepresentation is a continuing problem  Resources in relation to case law and legislation

 Gold, M. E. & Richards, H. (2012). To label or not to label: The special education question for African Americans. Educational Foundations, 26,  Grossen, B. (1996). How should we group to achieve excellence with equity? National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators,  Jacob, S., Decker, D. M., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2011). Ethics and Law. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.  LEAGEL. GA. STATE CONF. OF BR. OF NAACP V. STATE OF GA. Retrieved from:  Patton, J. M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education. The Journal of Special Education 32,  Reschley, D. J. & Kicklighter, R. J. (1985). Comparison of black and white mildly retarded students from Marshall v. Georgia. Retrieved from:  Reschly, D. J., Kicklighter, R., & McKee, P. (1988). Recent placement litigation: I. Regular education grouping: Comparison of Marshall (1984, 1985) and Hobson (1967,1969). School Psychology Review, 17(1),  Reschly, D. J., Kicklighter, R., & McKee, P. (1988). Recent placement litigation: II. Minority EMR overrepresentation: Comparison of Larry P. (1979, 1984, 1986) with Marshall (1984, 1985) and S-1 (1986). School Psychology Review, 17(1),  Simmon v. Hooks. 843 F. Supp. (1994). Retrieved from: +Hooks&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1 +Hooks&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1  The Library of Congress. (2013, November 19 th ). Primary Document in American History. Retrieved from:  U.S. Department of Justice. (2009, July). A Guide to Disability Rights Law. Retrieved from: