-
Court ruling extended 14th Amendment in that state mandated segregation based on unalterable traits was unconstitutional and violated equal protections, denying children equal opportunity to education (Yell, 2019). Advocates later cited Brown, maintaining that if segregation based on race was unconstitutional then so too was the total exclusion of students with disabilities (via institutionalization), denying them the right to equal education (Yell, 2019). -
The Civil Rights Act provided legislation to integrate schools, outlawing segregation, and banning discriminatory practices, resulting in more education equality for minorities as well as students with disabilities (Yell, 2019). -
The law contained 3 important goals in terms of educating students with disabilities:
- a single federal agency that would coordinate funds for students with disabilities, which was achieved by the Bureau of Education of the Handicappped (BEH).
- Sought to increase categorical funding adding pilot programs for children with disabilities
- Required that students with disabilities receive the necessary programs and services they need under special education (Yell, 2019). -
PARC (PA Association for Retarded Children) brought a class action suit into federal court against the Commonwealth of PA accusing them of ignoring their constitutional obligations to providing equal access to education for students with intellectual disabilities (Yell, 2019). PARC presented 4 key points that resolved the case and mandated the constitutional right for all children with mental retardation to receive free public education (Yell, 2019). -
Parents to children with disabilities outside of the school system filed a suit against D.C. board of education (Yell, 2019). The court found this case to be an example of total exclusion of students with disabilities, and therefore, a form of segregation (Yell, 2019). A judge mandated that the board provide children with disabilities a publicly supported education including procedures for labeling, placement, and exclusion of students with disabilities (Yell, 2019). -
Section 504 defined disability as having substantial limitations to one or more major life activities (Yell, 2019). It prohibited, and took corrective steps, against the discrimination of disability within federal agencies that provide funds for personal services, interests in property, and other benefits (Yell, 2019). Section 504 mandated public services, such as education, provide individualized modifications and accommodations (Yell, 2019). -
The San Francisco Unified School District filed a federal suit for wrongful placement of five African American students who were misdiagnosed with "educable mental retardation" (Garcia, 2015). Ultimately, the misdiagnoses were seen as racially biased and the product of discriminatory standardized testing (Garcia, 2019). The Court ruled in favor of the students, prohibiting the district from administrating these discriminatory IQ tests (Garcia, 2015). -
As the the first freestanding special education law, EAHCA consolidated and expanded previous federal grant programs to continue funding pilot agencies on state and local levels. It mandated students with disabilities to be educated via special education programs and related services needed (Yell, 2019). EAHCA provided funding for higher education to develop programs to train teachers for students with disabilities (Yell, 2019). -
Judge Newcorner ruled against the PA Department of Education, maintaining that they had refused to provide funds for a special education program related to services "in excess of 180 days per year" to handicapped students (Stotland & Mancuso,1981, pg. 1). In 1980, the appellate court agreed that the school had violated the 180 limitation act, enabling students to participate in mainstream education as independently as possible (Stotland & Mancuso, 1981). -
As the first special education case to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Rowley's argued for their child's right to free public education through her Section 504 accommodations to an ASL interpreter listed in her IEP (Yell, 2019). The Supreme Court developed a two part test that would help courts determine level of access to free public education a school provided through IEP processes (Yell, 2019). -
Amber Tatro with spina bifida required intermittent catheterization for which her school did not provide, even under the preexisting special education services provided (Yell, 2019). After being brought to the high court, the ruling concluded CIC services would be a related service under special education (Yell, 2019). As long as related services were provided by a non-physician, a qualified nurse could provide them (Yell, 2019). -
The Supreme Court addressed waiver of reimbursements under EHA, after parents to a handicapped child rejected the IEP from their public school in Burlington (Law Pipeline, n.d.). When the parents sought to place their son in private school without consent, they violated the "stay put" provision of Section 504 (Law Pipeline, n.d.). Because initial FAPE was not provided, that did not bar them from receiving the reimbursement for the cost of their son's private school (Law Pipeline, n.d.). -
The 1986 EHA Amendment made categorical grants to states that provided services for children with developmental delays between the ages 0-3 (Yell, 2019). Early interventions included services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and psychological services under public expense, as well IFSP (Individual Family Service Plan) (Yell, 2019). The 1986 amendment eventually became Part H of IDEA (Yell, 2019). -
Because disciplinary protocols for handicapped children had not been previously addressed, educators were confused regarding the ethical standards of children with disabilities (Yell, 2019). The Supreme Court provided procedural recommendations concerning temporary and lengthy suspension, expulsion, and due process around disciplinary action (Yell, 2019). For instance, it must be determine whether the child’s misbehavior is an effect of their disability (Yell, 2019). -
The reasoning in the Fifth Circuit’s decision regarding the determination of the least restrictive environment for children in special education, proposed testing to understand what supplemental aids and services were necessary upon the child being mainstreamed (Yell, 2019). Furthermore, regular class placement was prioritize with diagnosis in early ed.; however, older kids with behavioral disorders were more likely to be removed from mainstream (Gruenhagen & Ross, 1995). -
Changing from EHA to IDEA individualized access to free appropriate public education by clarifying services to include assistive technology and rehabilitation (Yell, 2019). It changed the language around disability, introducing person first language to emphasize the individual preceding their disability (Yell, 2019). Also, Autism and TBI were introduced as forms of disability (Yell, 2019). EHA 1990 required transition planning in IEPs for students 16 and older (Yell, 2019). -
The ADA prohibited discrimination of individuals with disabilities in public entities, such as schools (ADA National Network, 2017). The purpose was to provide equal opportunity to 5 sections of related to public life:
employment, public services, public accommodations and services operated by private entities, telecommunications, miscellaneous provisions, and transportation (ADA National Network, 2017). -
Established the inclusion of supplementary aids and services as “a fundamental value of the right to public education for children with disabilities” (Public Interest Law Center, 2019). It ultimately established that if placement outside of the classroom is necessary, then the district must also include the child in as many mainstream school programs as possible (Public Interest Law Center, 2019). -
When the Hollands’ were denied their request to mainstream their daughter, the District told them that Rachel would only be permitted to be mainstreamed in a non-academic class (ie music) (Justia Connect, 2023). The district court ruled in favor of the Hollands’, developing appropriate speech and social skills and successfully participated in all classroom activities (Justia Connect, 2023). Her IEP goals also must be successfully implemented in the mainstream setting (Justia Connect, 2023). -
A suit was filed in response to a lack of inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, but also due to an extreme lack of support in those general education classes, and a lack of trained special education teachers (Public Interest Law Center, 2019). With very few schools in PA acknowledging student's needs for resources, the state was mandated to improve systems of training teachers (Public Interest Law Center, 2019). -
Restructured previous amendment into a four part legislation from A-D (Yell, 2019). Because IDEA had put too much emphasis on paperwork and not enough on implementation of technique/teaching, changes ensured emphasis on improving student’s performance (Yell, 2019). Eventually made EHA Part H of IDEA became Part C with the 1997 amendment (Yell, 2019). -
Federal financial assistance to provide nursing services during school hours for a ventilator-dependent student named Garret (LII,n.d.). The case argued assured meaningful access to public school, not the cost of education once the accommodation is obtained (LII,n.d.). Garret would receive his nursing support and stay in the school and these related services would be funded by the district to guarantee his, and other students like him, integration in the school (LII,n.d.). -
No Child Left Behind was a reaction to low academic achievement of US students, providing accountability to states, school districts, and schools to produce improvements specifically in math and reading (Yell, 2019). Moreover, states were, then, required to develop rigorous curriculums to ensure student progression via numerical data as evidence (Yell, 2019). -
The 2004 amendment added to No Child Left Behind, emphasizing accountability for performance in the classroom (Yell, 2019). It provided changes to IEPs, to include discipline and identification of students with learning disabilities (Yell, 2019). Moreover, IDEA 2004 mandated that all special education teachers be certified to meet high standards of qualification regarding instructional strategies based on scientifically based methods (Yell, 2019). -
The Supreme Court ruled to “meet substantive obligation under IDEA, a school must offer IEP...To properly calculate child’s circumstances” (Yell, 2019). The court replaced trivial standards with an educational benefit team to determine an IEP that makes appropriate progress for a child’s specific needs (Yell, 2019). It rejected the higher max standard focusing on the idea that children with disabilities should receive an education that shows progress in spite of shortcomings (Yell, 2019).