Historical Timeline of Special Education: This timeline shows how one landmark court case, Brown vs. Board of Education, can start the fight for an equal and fair education for all students, regardless of ability or disability.

By madycl

  • Brown v. Board of Education: the courts began to reaffirm the rights of minority citizens in a wide variety of settings (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka
    -A young black girl was denied access to white schools on the premise that segregation meant "separate but equal" schools
    -The decision was reached that the separate schools were inherently unequal and integration of schools was then legal

  • PL 88-164: Funding granted to the training of educators to work with children with special needs (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-77/pdf/STATUTE-77-Pg282.pdf
    -only half of the proposed centers for training and research ever built
    -none of the centers were fully funded

  • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: children with IDD have a right to FAPE and should not be excluded from school regardless of disability (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/pennsylvania-association-for-retarded-citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania/
    -children who did not have a mental age of 5 years by first grade were not allowed an education originally
    -finally, with this case, children with "mental retardation" were guaranteed a free and public education
    -became the basis for PL 94-142

  • Mills vs. Board of Education: lack of funding for schools should not just result in cutting programs for children with exceptionalities - all programs should be cut back (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -several students in a school in D.C. were said to have behavioral problems, be hyperactive, have "mental retardation," or be emotionally disturbed and were denied an education
    -the court saw it as segregation like in Brown vs. Board of Education and ruled it as unlawful
    -the court said that funds had to be allocated to educate these children
    https://usedulaw.com/438-mills-v-board-of-education-of-the-district-of-columbia.html

  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: allows a child to qualify for additional support if they have problems such as failing grades, a pattern of suspensions, and/or chronic misbehavior (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -allows disabled children to have a free appropriate public education (FAPE)
    -all severities of disabilities are included
    https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html

  • PL 94-142 (The Education for All Handicapped Children Act): Guaranteed a free, public education that emphasized special education services to handicapped children (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -before this law, students with special needs could be denied a FAPE
    -required schools to have a division to deal with complaints when parents of students with disabilities do not think their child is receiving a FAPE (first dispute system put into place)
    -lesson plans must be as similar to their abled peers' as possible http://www.specialednews.com/special-education-dictionary/eha---education-for-all-handicapped-children-act.htm

  • Larry P. v. Riles: children must have adequate diagnostic tests (that account for cultural and linguistic differences( given before they are placed into special education (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -black children were being wrongly placed in special education classes
    -disadvantaged minority needs were not being met, therefore the schools placed them in special education classes without adequate testing
    -https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/495/926/2007878/

  • Jose P. v. Ambach: bilingual children with exceptionalities must have their diagnostic testing and their education respecting their dual-language backgrounds (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -It was argued that bilingual students were not being referred and evaluated in a timely fashion to special education programs
    -https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/557/1230/2239099/

  • Board of Education v. Rowley: suggested there was a limit to the resources that children with exceptionalities could expect (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a deaf child was denied access to an interpreter in class, which meant that she would only be able to access 60% of spoken language
    -it was decided that she was not receiving a FAPE
    -https://www.britannica.com/topic/Board-of-Education-of-the-Hendrick-Hudson-Central-School-District-v-Rowley

  • PL 99-457 (Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986): Federal funds allocated to provide children with disabilities and their families assistance and programs from birth on (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -improved the quality of services give to students with disabilities
    -recognized the unique role of families in development of children with disabilities
    -importance of intervention with infants and preschool children recognized
    -https://muse.jhu.edu/article/386771/pdf

  • Javits Acts (PL 100-297): provided a small sum of money to support research and demonstration programs that focused on students with disabilities from economically disadvantaged circumstances (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -purpose was to create a network of research, projects, and strategies to enhance special education needs of children in schools
    -looks particularly at underrepresented students in gifted programs (minority students or economically disadvantaged students, particularly) to reduce gaps in achievement
    -https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-university-professionals/jacob-javits-gifted-talented-students

  • Polk v. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16: services for children with disabilities must provide sufficient support so that the child with disabilities can benefit educationally (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -children with special needs were ruled to deserve access to additional services such as transportation, developmental services, occupational services, etc.
    -it was argued that children with disabilities deserve to receive the resources they need to optimize their education, just as children without disabilities get
    -https://openjurist.org/853/f2d/171/polk-v-central-susquehanna-intermediate-unit

  • Barnett v. Fairfax County Board of Education: a child with a hearing disability was allowed to attend a school farther away than the closest school because the school that was farther away better met the child's needs (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a student with a hearing disability argued that they should get to attend a non-neighborhood school if the specialized program there was what they needed to get the best individual education
    -https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/721/757/1420121/

  • Greer vs. Rome City School District: any placement for a child with disabilities must be in the least restrictive environment (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a child with disabilities was placed her in an isolated classroom at a non-neighborhood school, and this was argued to not follow the law of "least restrictive environment" because it was argued that she should be in a regular classroom with resources and peer models
    -https://casetext.com/case/greer-v-rome-city-school-dist/?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=C&NEW_CASE_PAGE=N

  • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992: guaranteed rights to any person with disabilities regardless of race, color, national origin, or religion (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -first comprehensive civil rights law in America addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities
    -prohibited discrimination against individuals with disabilities in "employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications"
    -https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/1990s/ada.html

  • Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District: it is the responsibility of the school district to demonstrate that a child has severe enough disabilities that they would not benefit from gen ed (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a child with Down's Syndrome wanted to be placed in a regular classroom with peers to get necessary supports rather than in an isolated learning environment
    -the court said that even if it was absolutely necessary for a child with disabilities to be in an isolated classroom, they still must at bare minimum include them in other school programs with children without disabilities (to an extent)
    -https://www.pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/oberti-v-board-of-education-of-the-borough-of-clementon/

  • Public Law 107-110 (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001): holds schools and educators responsible for bringing students to a minimum level of competency (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -main goal is to level the playing field for disadvantaged students (economically, racially, disability status, etc)
    -annual testing implemented where students had to reach an at minimum "proficient" score
    -schools could be closed for not meeting goals and/or parents allowed to transfer students
    -higher qualifications for teachers
    -https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/no-child-left-behind-nclb-what-you-need-to-know

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA): Improvement to PL 94-142, requiring state certifications required to teach special education, IEP standards (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention
    -diversified government grants between supporting special education services/early intervention and discretionary grants which support research and technology development for individuals with disabilities
    -children age 3-21 receive services
    -https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

  • Henrico County School Board v. R.T: If a public school knowingly fails to provide an appropriate special education program for its students, the disabled student may be awarded reimbursement for a private school (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a child with disabilities' needs were not being met in the public school, so his parents wanted to send him to the better-equipped private school free of charge in order for there to be a FAPE
    -https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/06/henrico.va.rt.htm

  • L.I. vs. Maine School Administrative District: a child with a disability should still be given special education services even if they are performing well academically (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a bright child who did well in school started to become anxious, depressed, and self-harm and was diagnosed with Asperger's
    -her parents wanted her to have an IEP, but were rejected because her academic performance was not suffering
    -https://www.quimbee.com/cases/mr-i-v-maine-school-administrative-district-no-55

  • Winkleman vs. Parma City School District: parental participation in the special education process is crucial to ensuring that children with disabilities receive a FAPE (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -a boy with disabilities was argued by his parents to not be getting a FAPE in the public schools, and they wanted to send him to a private school free of charge for a better education
    -https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-983

  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: large funds provided to the states under IDEA on a one time basis to improve the quality of early intervention services (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -provided more funds for individuals with disabilities to state educational agencies and local educational agencies
    -more funds given in order to ensure a FAPE for all children with disabilities and to prepare the child for independent living, further education, or employment
    -https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/idea.html

  • Drobnicki vs. Poway United School District: parents must be present for IEP meetings (Kirk, Gallagher, & Coleman, 2015)

    -parents of a child with disabilities were unable to make an IEP meeting, and the meeting was not rescheduled so that the parents could come
    -it was ruled that the parents must be present for IEP meetings and every effort must be made to make sure that they are there
    -https://blog.foxspecialedlaw.com/2010/01/recent-case-law-of-interest.html

  • ESSA(Every Student Succeeds Act): advances equity for disadvantaged/high-needs student, requires college/career-readiness curriculum, implements statewide assessments/measures of progress, supports evidence-based interventions, invests in preschool access

    -reauthorizes ESEA
    -upholds protections for at-risk and high needs students
    -statewide assessments implemented to measure progress
    -supports local innovations/interventions
    -investments in high-quality preschool
    -accountability for poor performing schools
    -https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn