-
Brown v. Board of Education-1954
This 1954 verdict was a pivotal case that established integration as the required practice for all public schools. While actual implementation of public school integration would occur slowly this law still was significant in that it established the Fourteenth Amendment as a cornerstone for future legal battles over education. The Brown decision paved the way for greater inclusion of not only African American students, but also students with disabilities. -
Civil Rights Act 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 still stands as one of the most consequential laws in that it represented a dramatic commitment from the federal government to reform education by fighting against discrimination. The Civil Rights Act, while focused on removing the barriers facing African-Amercians also paved the way for increasing access to quality education for other students of color as well as students with disabilities and women. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965
In 1965, President Johnson championed the enactment of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA placed the federal government as an active agent working to ensure that educational opportunities were provided in an equitable manner to students of color, students with disabilities and women. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA--1972
The 1972 case of PARC v. Commonwealth of PA is of pivotal importance in the field of Special Education. This case established the legal grounds that students with disabilities had a right to quality education services and this included free educational resources. -
Mills v. Board of Education, 1972
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) reinforced the expectation that school districts were to provide services to students with disabilities regardless of costs. The Mills decision was consequential in that it cemented the legal right to “adequate” educational resources for families seeking disability services. -
The Rehabilitation Act-504 (1973)
The Rehabilitation Act-504 (1973) was passed with the intended purpose of providing greater resources for vocational rehabilitation. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is a significant piece of legislation in that it extended access to disability services provided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Section 504 lowered the threshold needed for a student with a disability to receive support from a school district. -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) 1975
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) is the foundational law upon which the field of Special Education was created. EAHCA required all school districts to guarantee equal access to quality education to students with disabilities. EAHCA established multiple critical practices and policies in the field of Special Education such as, FAPE, procedural safeguards, least restrictive environment (LRE), and appropriate evaluation of disability. -
Armstrong v. Kline-1979
In 1979 students with disabilities were provided access to Extended School Year (ESY) as a resource via the federal case of Armstrong v. Kline. Prior to this decision there was a practice of limiting the level of access students with IEPs had to extended school year programming. The courts in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs mandated that the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) provision of IDEA apply to school districts' ESY offerings. -
Larry P. v. Riles, 1979
As a result of the 1979 ruling in Larry P. v. Riles school districts were prohibited from utilizing IQ tests as a central component of the disability assessment process. This decision helped to increase the accessibility to special education programs by lowering the barriers present. -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley-1984
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley (1984) clarified the question of “what is the basic floor of services provided by the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975?” In this case the courts ruled that school districts are allowed to determine what are the essential services to be provided to a student with a disability so long as the district strictly adheres to the procedural guidelines of the EAHC Act. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro-1984
The 1984 decision of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro was the first case to rule that the related services provided within the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) extended to certain medical services. This ruling served as a significant expansion of EHCA by extending the access to health care services for students with disabilities. -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE-1985
In 1985 the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision (Burlington School Committee v. DOE) ruled that the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) permitted change of placements by parents within certain parameters. Specifically this ruling provided parents the authority to place their child in a private school as a result of rejecting IEP and further stated that school districts would be required to provide reimbursement. -
EHA Amendment 1986
In 1986 the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act received a major amendment that extended disability services to children from birth. This amendment revised the previous practice of only allowing access to disability resources for children starting at the age of three. The amendment represented a victory for advocates who wanted greater resources dedicated to early intervention via preschool programming. -
Honig v. Doe-1988
The Supreme Court in the 1988 case of Honig v. Doe established a pivotal provision of “stay-put” that provided protections to students with disabilities as it relates to suspensions and expulsions. The Honig case declared that school districts are prohibited from denying a student with a disability access to the classroom (via a suspension) based on inappropriate behaviors that are related to their disability. -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education-1989
The 1989 decision in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education the court clarified that IDEA required school districts to provide a continuum of services for students with disabilities. This decision ensured that a child receiving an IEP would be cared for not just relating their academic needs but their social needs as well. This meant that a child with an IEP could participate in a school's extracurricular programs. -
EHA Amendment 1990
In an 1990 amendment of the Education for All Handicapped Children's Act was renamed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The name change to IDEA brought with it greater expansion of disability services. Special education protection was provided to students who were diagnosed with Autism as well as those who experienced traumatic brain injury. In addition, this amendment to EAHCA mandated that school districts prioritize inclusion. -
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990
The fight to ensure that individuals with disabilities were afforded equal rights and legal protections was championed by the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990. This act made it illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, national origin and disability status. ADA established the legal expectation for employers to provide appropriate accommodations to their employees with disabilities. -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland-1992
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland (1992) was a case that clarified the least-restrictive provision of IDEA to be understood as a policy for creating full inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education classroom. This ruling expanded upon the policies related to least-restrictive environment found within IDEA by creating specific guidelines schools must use to determine what environment is best suited for a student with an IEP. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F., 1992
In the 1992 decision of Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F., the courts further clarified the services provided by IDEA to include continuous nursing care. This case continued the trajectory established by Irving Independent School District v. Tatro that held school districts responsible for providing health care related services for students with disabilities. -
Oberti v. Board of Education, 1993
The case of Oberti v. Board of Education, 1993, continued the pattern of courts ruling to protect the rights of students with disabilities. The Oberti ruling clarified the legal interpretation of IDEA to establish mainstreaming as the default format for educating students with disabilities. Oberti placed inclusion with supplementary aids and services as the legal expectation for school districts. -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA., 1994
As a result of the settlement reached in Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1994), Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) agreed to a series of policy changes focused on ensuring greater inclusion of students with disabilities. The Gaskin agreement called on PDE to augment the quality and accessibility of services provided to students with disabilities specifically as it relates to supplementary aids utilized to allow for access to the traditional classroom. -
EHA/IDEA Amendment 1997
In 1997 amendments made to IDEA served to clarify policies for how school districts could handle inappropriate behavior by students with disabilities. School leaders were provided the authority to alter the placement for extended periods of time of students with disabilities who misbehave. -
No Child Left Behind 2001
The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 served as a critical piece of legislation for educators and schools. NCLB provided a significant level of new guidelines on how school districts supported students from various backgrounds. NCLB required school districts to carefully document the academic success rates of students and to develop plans for addressing achievement gaps. -
IDEA Amendment 2004
IDEA amendment (2004) implemented changes and revised policies found in the original IDEA law. This amendment pushed for districts to use modern and appropriate evaluation procedures for disability services. This 2004 amendment also brought forth changes to the IEP process and document. -
Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District 2017
Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District (2017) was a Supreme court case which clarified the issue related to the level of support required to meet the IDEA provision of free appropriate public education (FAPE). The court ruled that districts are required to demonstrably provide families of students with disabilities an IEP plan that is reasonably calculated and designed to promote adequate educational progress.