Which case ruled that tracking students by intelligence scores into regular and special education is unconstitutional for some populations?

Which case ruled that tracking students by intelligence scores into regular and special education is unconstitutional for some populations?

• A. Mills v. Board of Education (1972)
• B. Hobson v. Hanson (1967)
• C. Honig v. Doe (1988)
• D. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)

Answer: (B)

Relying on a single intelligence test to sort students into regular versus special education raises fundamental questions about fairness, due process, and how students’ futures are determined. Hobson v. Hanson (1967) addressed exactly this by ruling that placing children in tracks based on IQ scores, without proper procedural safeguards, violated constitutional rights for some students. The decision showed that such tracking can be arbitrary and stigmatizing, especially for historically disadvantaged groups, and it emphasized the need for due process: clear criteria, multiple measures rather than a single test, ongoing evaluation, and opportunities for students and families to be heard and to challenge placement decisions. This case established that placement decisions must be transparent, revisable, and grounded in a fair process rather than a one-shot IQ score. While later laws and cases developed the landscape of special education rights (like ensuring a free appropriate public education), Hobson stands out for linking IQ-based tracking to constitutional concerns and procedural protections.

Relying on a single intelligence test to sort students into regular versus special education raises fundamental questions about fairness, due process, and how students’ futures are determined. Hobson v. Hanson (1967) addressed exactly this by ruling that placing children in tracks based on IQ scores, without proper procedural safeguards, violated constitutional rights for some students. The decision showed that such tracking can be arbitrary and stigmatizing, especially for historically disadvantaged groups, and it emphasized the need for due process: clear criteria, multiple measures rather than a single test, ongoing evaluation, and opportunities for students and families to be heard and to challenge placement decisions. This case established that placement decisions must be transparent, revisable, and grounded in a fair process rather than a one-shot IQ score. While later laws and cases developed the landscape of special education rights (like ensuring a free appropriate public education), Hobson stands out for linking IQ-based tracking to constitutional concerns and procedural protections.