-
Brown v. Board of Education
Addressed segregation/integration of schools. -
Training of Professional Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-158)
Helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation -
Elementary and Secondary Education act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10)
Provided stated with direct assistance for educating children with disabilities -
State Schools Act (Public Law 89-313)
Provided stated with direct assistance for educating children with disabilities -
Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1967 (Public Law 87-276)
Addressed training of personnel for children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing -
Handicapped Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-538)
Support for early education programs and increased head start enrollment for young children with disabilities -
Economic Opportunities Amendment of 1972 (Public Law 92-424)
Support for early education programs and increased head start enrollment for young children with disabilities -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
Establish state responsibility for educating children with disabilities. -
P.A.R.C v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
P.A.R.C. extended the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education to students with disabilities -
All Handicapped Children’s Act (Public Law 94-142)
- Support states and protects the rights of individuals with disabilities and their families (including infants and toddlers) 2. Before this was passed, only 1 in 5 children with disabilities was served. After passed, services to children with disabilities increased from 1.8 million to 7.5 million
-
Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v. Rowley
Addressed for the first time what is meant by (Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). -
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176
Concerned with the provision of a certified sign language interpreter for Deaf Students. -
Reauthorization of (Public Law 99-457)
Addresses early education services for children with disabilities and their families from birth. -
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305
Addressed the issue of expelling a student with disabilities. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, 875 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989)
This case is an appeal of a former case that stated a child that is profoundly handicapped is not eligible for special education if he cannot benefit from such education. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA (Public Law 110-476)
Reauthorization of the EHA. The name changed from EHA to IDEA. Established disability categories for traumatic brain injury and Autism. Established that each student have a transition plan as a part of their IEP. -
Reauthorization (Public Law 105-17)
Emphasis is placed on the general curriculum for students with disabilities. States were given authority to expand “developmental delay” to include up to age 9. Provided a process to attempt the resolution of disputes between families and LEAs. -
Reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA
-
Release of IDEA Regulations
Requiring research-based interventions for instruction or eligibility determination for students with learning difficulties. -
Additional IDEA regulations addressed
Parental consent for services (related and special education). Non-attorney representation in due process. Stat monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement. Funding. Employment for individuals with disabilities. -
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments
-
Additional IDEA regulations
Clarified IDEA for infants and toddlers with disabilities program. -
Addition IDEA regulations
Revised parental consent requirements for public benefits and informed consent of all legal protections. -
IDEA regulation revisions
Legislation governing fiscal effort of LEAs and defining modified academic standards and assessments. -
IDEA regulation revisions
Addresses disproportionality and proper identification of students with Disabilities -
2017 revision of (Public Law 85-926)
Made changes to reflect Rosa’s Law replacing “mental retardation” with intellectual disabilities. -
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1
A revisit of FAPE and the level of benefit required by districts “School must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”