BazoED512U10Timeline

By bazob13

  • White House Conference on Children

    The first White House Conference on Children was held. This helped to bring attention to the education of children with disabilities (Yell, 2012, p. 47).

  • Compulsory Attendance Laws

    Compulsory Attendance Laws now passed in all states. Children with disabilities were often still excluded from attending a public school (Yell, 2012, p. 46).

  • The Council for Exceptional Children

    The Council for Exceptional Children was founded. Has been a long-time leading advocate for the rights and interests of children with disabilities, originally founded by “faculty and students at Teachers College, Columbia University, in New York” (Yell, 2012, p. 48).

  • Cuyahoga County Ohio Council for the Retarded Child

    First parent-led advocacy group for the education of children with disabilities was founded. It was called the Cuyahoga County Ohio Council for the Retarded Child and led to the creation of a special education class sponsored by the group (Yell, 2012, p. 48).

  • The National Association for Retarded Citizens

    The National Association for Retarded Citizens (Now ARC) was founded. Their goals was to provide information, monitor quality of services for individuals with mental retardation, and advocate for rights for these individuals (Yell, 2012, p. 48).

  • Brown v. Board of Education

    Brown v. Board of Education – A huge step forward for the civil rights movement. This case ended the forced segregation of schools depending upon race on the basis that “segregated public schools denied students equal educational opportunities” (Yell, 2012, p. 49).

  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Pub.L. 89–10)

    The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed. This law provided federal funds to states to assist in educating certain groups of students and served as the precursor for direct aid to students with disabilities (Yell, 2012, p. 52).

  • The Education of the Handicapped Act (Pub. L. 91-230)

    The Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) replaced Title VI of the ESEA, provided funds for institutions to train teachers of students with disabilities, and “became the basic framework for much of the legislation that was to follow” (Yell, 2012, p. 52).

  • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Pennsylvania – The ruling in this case specified that all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 must be provided a free public education to the best extent possible as their peers without disabilities (Yell, 2012, p. 51).

  • Mills v. Board of Education

    Mills v. Board of Education – A class-action lawsuit supporting students who were excluded from public education without due process. The ruling established that denying students with disabilities a public education was unconstitutional and demanded the establishment of procedural safeguards that would become the foundation for the due process aspect of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) (Yell, 2012, p. 51).

  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Pub. L. No. 93-112)

    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act – This was the first federal civil rights act to specifically protect the rights of people with disabilities. The law specified that no one be discriminated upon or denied benefits solely because of a handicap or other disability (Yell, 2012, p. 52).

  • The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

    The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps was founded. TASH distributes information regarding best practices, publishes research, and supports the rights of those persons with severe or multiple disabilities (Yell, 2012, p. 48).

  • Several Education Amendments to the EHA

    Several Education Amendments to the EHA were passed. These authorized the formation of the National Advisory Council on Handicapped Children, and required that “each state receiving federal special education funding establish a goal of providing full educational opportunities for all children with disabilities (Yell, 2012, p. 53).

  • The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Pub. L. 94-142)

    The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed. This act combined an educational bill of rights and financial incentives from the federal government. In order to receive funds, states had to develop and submit plans meeting these new federal requirements (Yell, 2012, p. 53).

  • Stuart v. Nappi

    Stuart v. Nappi – The ruling judge in this case determined that expelling a student in a special education program is a violation of the law. Expulsion would be the equivalent of a change of placement, which cannot be done without a full revision of a student’s IEP (Stuart v. Nappi, 1978).

  • Armstrong v. Kline

    Armstrong v. Kline – This case concerned imposing a 180-day rule on students in special education is a violation of their rights in Section 504 and in EAHCA. The school districts are responsible for determining an appropriate education, and that may mean schooling during the summer months (Armstrong v. Kline, 1979).

  • Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, v. Rowley

    Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, v. Rowley – This is an important case for determining what constitutes a free appropriate public education. Initially going in favor of the student, the Supreme Court ruled the other way in an appeal, stating that the school district had provided FAPE even without the use of a sign language interpreter (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County v. Amy Rowley, 1982).

  • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

    Irving Independent School District v. Tatro – This lawsuit established certain medical services as a part of “related services” of special education as long as they are administered by a medical professional, such as a school nurse. “Only those services necessary to aid a handicapped child to benefit from special education must be provided” (Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro, 1984).

  • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

    City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cleburne Living Center, agreeing that the city of Cleburne had been discriminatory toward the living center on the sole basis that it was to be a home for those with mental retardation (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.,1985).

  • The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (Pub. L. 99-372)

    The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act was passed. This amended EAHCA to “allow the provision of attorney’s fees to parties prevailing in special education lawsuits” (Yell, 2012, p. 313). It consisted of three major parts: authorization of courts to award fees, clarification of effect of IDEA on other laws, and a retroactive application of the law to pay past attorney’s fees.

  • The Education of the Handicapped Amendments (Pub. L. 101-476)

    The Education of the Handicapped Amendments – These amendments eventually became a subchapter of IDEA, and required for states to develop early intervention services for children with disabilities and their families (Yell, 2012, p. 54).

  • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Pub. L. 102-119)

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed. This act renamed EACHA, substituted the word “disability” for “handicap” throughout the law, used “people first” language, and required transition planning and services as a part of the IEP process (Yell, 2012, p. 56).

  • Carter v. Florence County School District Four

    Carter v. Florence County School District Four – If a public school fails to provide appropriate special education services, yet a private school does, the school district may have to reimburse the tuition, even if the placement decision was made unilaterally by the parents (Carter v. Florence County School District Four, 1991).

  • Amendments to IDEA (Pub. L. 105-17)

    Amendments to IDEA were passed. This reauthorized the law and focused on improving the effectiveness of special education “by requiring demonstrable improvements in the educational achievement of students with disabilities” (Yell, 2012, p. 56).

  • The No Child Left Behind Act (Pub. L. 107-110)

    The No Child Left Behind Act was passed. This reauthorized ESEA and was designed to reverse low academic achievement throughout America. NCLB required the creation of accountability measures for tracking and improving student achievement that were focused on closing the achievement gap (Yell, 2012, p. 57).

  • The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

    The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education was created. This commission recommended ways to reform special education to bring it up to the same accountability standards mandated in NCLB (Yell, 2012, p. 57).

  • The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Pub. L. 108-446)

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) was passed. IDEA 2004 fully implemented the accountability standards of NCLB in special education, established certification requirements for special education teachers, and requires instruction and intervention methods to be research-based (Yell, 2012, p. 58).