-
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
After the ruling of PARC v. Commonw. of Penn., this case ruled that all students with disabilities are entitled to special education. Up until around this period, children with disabilities were denied access to education. With this ruling, children with disabilities were able to enroll into all schools. Despite stating that the education system didn't have enough resources required to teach special needs children, the court stated that the resources must be spent equitably amongst all students. -
Educational Amendments Act
This law prohibits school districts from discriminating against both school faculty and students based on race, gender, or disabilities. This law is an extension of the EAA from 1972, which previously didn't include students with disabilities. EAA also provided funding for students with special needs in both their courses and needs while attending school. -
Education For All Handicapped Children Act
This law requires schools with students with disabilities to provide equal and equitable education for every student. This law also allowed parents to dispute any changes or decisions made on the student with disabilities' educational program. The law is also noteworthy because it explains what a least restrictive environment means, benefitting those with special needs to receive equal education. -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District V. Rowley
Rowley was a deaf student, and her guardians demanded that the school must provide a sign language interpreter for the student.
The court ruled that the school didn't need to provide for this service due to Rowley receiving equal education as her peers were.Under this law, FAPE was more clearly defined. FAPE also dealt with extracurricular placements and what is free.
https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-rights/what-is-and-isnt-covered-under-fape -
Honig v. Doe
Under the ruling of Honig v. Doe, it is unlawful for schools to expel students due to behavioral issues stemming from their disabilities. Although the student (Doe) was accused of assaulting a peer had behavioral issues, Doe claimed that the suspension was unlawful under the stay-put provision. Due to having a disability, it was unlawful for the student to be suspended from school while the consequences were being deliberated for an extended period. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire
With Timothy W. v. Rochester, this law made it mandatory for all schools to provide equal education for all, despite the severity of a disability within a student. Although two out of three pediatricians ruled that the disabled student (Timothy) would not benefit from education, one pediatrician claimed the opposite. The court also ruled that IDEA (formerly EAHCA) enforces a zero-reject policy, so determining a student's capacity to learn is not a prerequisite for the student to receive an educ. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
Under this law, provisions regarding IDEA require schools to provide students with disabilities the resources they need to succeed in school. This law also required schools to provide medical staff for students with disabilities, despite costs. This law ensured that families could send their children to school without worrying about serious health issues while the student is receiving an education. -
No Child Left Behind Act
No Child Left Behind provided proficiency standards per state and district that schools must meet in order for students to show improvement in their courses. This act included standards for those with special needs. Along with standards for schools, NCLB allowed students who fell below their school's standards to be placed in school improvement lists to help all students reach similar proficiency levels to their peers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0--2nhsDorg -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The parents of Jacob Winkleman argued with the court that they should be in charge of their child's disabilities in regard to his education due to they viewing the schools as not providing him with equal education. They appeared in court for their child lawyer-less and believed they were allowed to do so under IDEA. The court ruled against this and further stated that IDEA protects only the child's rights, not the guardians of the child. -
Doug C. v. Hawaii
Under this ruling, if the parents or guardians of a special needs student is not present while an IEP is being curated, then the IEP is invalid. If the guardian is also not present while the IEP is being created, then IDEA was infracted upon. Without the parents involvement while creating an IEP, then the student with disabilities cannot reach their full potential while receiving an education.
