-
Brown v. Board of Education
Though this case addressed the unconstitutional nature of racial segregation in school, it ended up having far-reaching implications for the segregation of children with special needs. Because the case highlighted that children who are segregated are deprived of equal educational opportunities, it provided the opportunity for parents of students with disabilities to bring forward lawsuits claiming that students segregated due to their disabilities were being discriminated against. -
Period: to
Federal Legislation in the 1950's specific to Special Education
-The Captioned Films Acts of 1958
-Public Law 85-926
-The Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959
-Public Law 87-715
-The Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961
-The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 These acts provided funding for the training, facilities, and production of materials for students with hearing and intellectual disabilities. This paved the way for more students with disabilities to have access to education. -
The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson to provide educational opportunities for students born into poverty. It was amended in 1966 to include grant money for the creation or expansion of programs to teach students with disabilities. This began the idea that some students need "more." Whether socio/economic status or having a disability, the ESEA promoted a focus on ensuring all students have access to quality education. -
Period: to
Early Education Programs
The Handicapped Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-538) and the Economic Opportunities Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-424) provided funding for early education and headstart programs for young students with disabilities. By identifying students early, related services can be implemented and students can have the opportunity to come into elementary school with the same opportunities as their typically developing peers. -
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of 1971
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the first right-to-education lawsuit in our country. Through this suit, the parents of students with intellectual disabilities claimed that state law was unconstitutional because it denied public education to their children. It was agreed that the state was to evaluate and educate students with intellectual disabilities from the ages of 6-21. This was a huge step forward to equitable education for all -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
The parents of students with disabilities filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of the District of Columbia (DC Board of Ed) claiming that their children were being denied access to public education. The students were labeled as "exceptional" students. A settlement was reached but the school board did not meet the requirements, so the court interceded. Brown v. Board of Education was quoted reiterating that a public education must be available to all. -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first federal civil rights protection for people with disabilities. It bars discrimination against people with disabilities. Civil rights protections for people with disabilities are a large step forward for the inclusion of all people, especially students in school. This reiterates that all students deserve a high-quality education, regardless of exceptional needs. -
The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975
President Gerald Ford signed into law the requirement that all states provide equal access to education to children with disabilities. The EHA guaranteed students evaluation, an individual education plan that provides a free, appropriate public education (FAPE), parent input, and student placement in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). LRE is still extremely important, even nearly 50 years later. All students deserve the opportunity to be included in the general education classroom. -
CA Ed Code 56026
California Education Code 56026 sets forth what it means to have exceptional needs. (b) says a student will not be eligible for special education services if their needs can be adequately met through nonspecial educational services like modifying the regular classroom program.
This is an important aspect of schooling that places an emphasis on teachers to differentiate their instruction in order to support all students -
CA Ed Code 56040
This code states alignment with IDEA that individuals with special needs are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). This is important to ensure all students with exceptional needs receive a meaningful education, not just those who can afford it. 56040.1 also reiterates the importance of students being educated within a Least Restrictive Environment -
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
The parents of a deaf student felt that their daughter should be provided with a sign language interpreter, but her school disagreed. They felt that her limited hearing and ability to read lips provided her with proper access to education. Her parents sued the school district and cited the EHA of 1975 claiming that the school was not providing a free, appropriate public education. The district court ruled in the parents' favor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed -
Re-authorization of EHA of 1986
Known as Public Law 99-457, this re-authorization extended services for children with special needs to birth instead of the age of three. The earlier children with special needs are exposed to services, the better opportunities those children will have to assimilate into school with their typically developing peers. -
Honig v. Doe, cont.
Because of this case, students with disabilities cannot be suspended for more than 10 days. This offers protection both to students/families and the school. If a student is acting out so egregiously to the point that they are suspended or hurting people, then an IEP must certainly be held to determine if it is a manifestation of their disability and if so, the student may need more/better support. It also protects students from being unfairly removed from school because of their disability -
Honig v. Doe
This landmark decision protects students with special needs from being removed from a current placement due to their disability. It centered around two separate students who acted violently in school; they were suspended indefinitely pending expulsion. The parents argued that the behavior was a manifestation of the disability, eventually, the Supreme Court agreed that the district acted incorrectly and these students were being denied FAPE. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District
In this case, a student with multiple profound disabilities was refused educational services due to two pediatricians reporting that he had no educational potential. Other pediatricians disagreed. The board refused several times over four years to provide the student with necessary services. A district court sided with the district based on the idea that the student was not "capable of benefitting" from services....continued. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, cont.
The case was brought before the Court of Appeals. The court found that the EHA has a "zero-reject" policy and just because a student appears to be "uneducable" does not preclude him from receiving necessary services such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and language therapy, or life skills.
This is an important case for the protection of students with profound disabilities. No matter how severe the disability, students in need are entitled to services. -
IDEA- EHA Re-Authorization of 1990
EHA was re-authorized in 1990 and changed the law's name to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It focused on promoting research and the creation of post-high school programs. It also added traumatic brain injury and autism to the list of disabilities. IDEA is still the guiding principle for educating students with disabilties. -
California Early Intervention Services Act
California Government Code 95014 outlines alignment with IDEA that infants and toddlers can be eligible for necessary services from birth the age two -
Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg
A high school student with failing grades, severe behavior issues, and an individualized education plan was unilaterally parent placed in a private school. The parents argued that the district was not offering enough support for their student's behavioral issues. The district argued that the student's disabilities were not a factor in his behavior. Eventually, the courts sided with the parents, and the district paid out over $300,000...continued. -
Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg, cont.
This case was highly contested by both the district and the Orange County Department of Education. They felt that it set a precedence that students with behavioral problems who also happen to have IEPs will qualify for district-funded residential treatment. This is a difficult case because requires separating disability from behavior and determining if one is a manifestation of the other. -
IDEA Re-Authorization of 1997
This re-authorization added emphasis that students with disabilities should have full access to the general education experience. This included participating in standardized testing with accommodations, and emphasis on student placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and transition services for students as they got older. LRE is a cornerstone of special education. Keeping students within the general education promotes inclusion and dates back to the ideals of Brown v. Board -
NCLB- ESEA Update
Originally signed into law in 1965, the ESEA was updated in 2002 and became known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). NCLB focuses on greater school accountability by ensuring students are proficient in academic standards, participating in standardized exams, and being taught by highly qualified teachers. It was meant to ensure that schools were providing better education but was generally viewed as having too many rules/provisions that made it more difficult for teachers to educate students. -
IDEA 2004 Re-Authorization
This re-authorization was meant to align with NCLB by implementing early intervention systems for students not currently identified as having a disability, increasing accountability for student proficiency, and changing the definition and requirements of what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. Having higher standards for teachers is a benefit to all students, but particularly students with the most needs. -
IDEA 2006 Re-Authorization
This re-authorization added the requirement that schools use research-based interventions for students exhibiting difficulties prior to and while in the process of determining eligibility. This is important in determining what level of support a student needs. Teachers should be differentiating instruction and implementing intervention before referring students for testing. -
Rosa's Law 2010
President Barack Obama signed Rosa's Law which changed the term "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability" in US Federal Law. This was meant to promote respect and inclusion for all people with disabilities.
This change was reflected in IDEA, ESEA, and ESSA. -
NCLB to ESSA Re-Authorization of 2015
Understanding that NCLB had so many requirements that it was no longer feasible for schools to meet all the requirements, President Obama and congress went about creating the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Much like NCLB, the ESSA also seeks to educate students at high standards and use standardized testing to do so. It places a large emphasis on high-quality preschools and "upholding critical protections for...high needs students". -
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1
In a case regarding educational progress, a family went through progressively higher levels of courts. seeking private school reimbursement. A court of appeals found that the FAPE was defendable due to it meeting requirements that the student make minimal progress. The US Supreme Court disagreed with the court of appeals. They stated that an IEP should enable the student to progress as much as possible and that "every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives"