-
First prominent court case regarding people who in the future would be called children with intellectual or learning disabilities. PARC v established that these children should receive public schooling at their individualized level of ability.
-
Similar to PARC v, established a precedent that children with disabilities have access to public education.
-
Following the two landmark cases in 1971, a special investigation was called for into the status of children with disabilities in American schools. The query found that less than half of these children received an adequate education.
-
New law requiring all states that received federal funding for education (all of them!) to provide education to children with disabilities.
-
Contentious supreme court case which says strict quotas as a form of affirmative action are unfair. Origin of popular idea of 'reverse discrimination'.
-
Law that gave parents the ability to get involved with developing their child's IEP.
-
I was born in 1989. Children with disabilities were still called handicapped when I was born.
-
Education for All Handicapped Children Act renamed to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Not only did this catch the act up to modern language, it added amendments clarifying rights and responsibilities.
-
I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 7 years old. Less than a generation ago, there wasn't even language to describe my specific needs.
-
Supreme Court of NC rules that NC has a constitutional duty to ensure children have a sound education. Begins a multiple decade period of legal injunction to improve, with varying success.
-
IDEA gets substantially updated with more specific wording regarding accountability, student outcomes, and instructor standards. These amendments set much of the groundwork for modern cases challenging IEP standards.
-
I graduated in 2007. Despite my near-perfect SAT score, I had a 2.0 GPA. I had no IEP, teachers did not talk to my parents, and I'm not sure the administration even knew about my diagnosis.
-
Unanimous supreme court verdict that children with disabilities legally deserved more than "more than de minimis". Before this court case, which happened only 5 years ago, children with disabilities had no legal right to progress.