-
Brown verse Board of Education
This famous court decision was a major victory for the Civil Rights movement as it ended segregation in public schools. However this landmark case also supports special education and students with disabilities. According to Yell (2012) the case was cited by those advocating for equal protection for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities should have the same rights as those without disabilities. Furthermore advocates pointed out that some students with disabilities were not given -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
This act created the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped which later become known as the Office of Special Education Programs. The purpose of this office is to support the needs of special education students through funding and support. This is important because it shows that the government wants to do something to support special needs students in the classroom. Also the legislation provided funding under Title VI to pilot programs for students with disabilities -
Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970
This legislation replaced the Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This law expanded funding and programs for students with disabilities. It also provided funding for higher education to train teachers to work with special needs students. -
Mills verses Board of Education
This suit was filed against the District of Columbia’s board of education. This case was brought up by seven parents of students with disabilities. These students were denied public education by the District of Columbia. This suit was based on the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. According to Yell (2012), “The court held that because segregation in public education on the basis of race was unconstitutional, the total exclusion of students with disabilities was also unconst -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children verses Pennsylvania
The Plaintiffs in this case argued that the state of Pennsylvania was delaying or ignoring its obligation under the Constitution to provide a public education for students with disabilities. They argued that this violated the fourteenth amendment for the United States Constitution. The results of the case were that all children with a mental illness were guaranteed a free public education between the ages of six to twenty one. -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
This was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that protected the rights of students with disabilities. It took what was guaranteed to students of races to students with disabilities. It defined a handicapped person as, “any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of that person’s major life activities, or a person who has a record of such an impairment or who is regarded as having such an impairment” (Yell, 2012, p. 52). The primary purpose of the ac -
The Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
Prior to this law many students were still excluded from public education based on their disability and many of students with disabilities who were in school were not receiving an appropriate education. President Ford signed this remarkable legislation into law. This required all districts to provide a free appropriate public education for students with disabilities. Students who qualified for services had the right to, nondiscriminatory testing’s and emulations, education in the least restricti -
Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School District verses Rowley
Parents in this case sought the court to decide if a free appropriate public education was being implemented for their deaf daughter. In fact the court held that it was providing such an education. A definition of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment was defined by the court. -
Burlington School Committee verses Massachusetts Department of Education
Education
A family in the Burlington Massachusetts school district disagreed with the services the child was receiving. “The Court’s unanimous decision was that a public agency is not responsible for requests of reimbursement if the free education plan is in fact considered to be the appropriate education plan and that a family can seek reimbursement for interim private schooling if the proposed education plan is deemed inadequate for the child's specific needs. The Court also reinforced that du -
The Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1990
This renamed the EAHCA. It replaced the term disability with handicap. This law added two significant disability categories: autism and traumatic brain injury. This law provided clarification to related services, assistive technology, and rehabilitation services. It also implemented a transition plan into the IEP process. -
Florence County School District Four verses Shannon Carter
This case ruled that if a school district is not providing a free appropriate education then a parent can be reimbursed for a private education. -
No Child Left Behind Act
This is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA. “No Child Left Behind Act, which was a reaction to low academic achievement of America’s students, dramatically expanded the role of the federal government in public education by holding states, school districts, and schools accountable for producing measurable gains in student’s achievement in reading and mathematics” (Yell, 2012, p. 57). The impact on special education is that students with disabilities are to be assessed and the results of the -
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
This law builds on the No Child Left Behind Act to hold schools accountable for special needs students. It required that all special education teachers be certified to teach special education and meet the goals in the NCLB. -
Schaffer verses Weast
This case ruled that the burden of proof in a due process hearing rests with the party seeking relief.