History of Special Education Law

By shschmidt

  • Brown vs. Board of Education

    This court case struck down the earlier Plessy vs. Ferguson ruling. According to Brown vs. Board of Education, seperate facilities were inherently discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Schools were now required to be integrated, with both African-American and Caucasian children attending the same facilities.

  • Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania was refusing to allow students with disabilities access to public schools. Once sued, Pennsylvania opted to work with PARC to come to an agreeable arrangement. The US District court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny any child of compulsory attendance age access to school.

  • Mills vs. Board of Education of District of Columbia

    The District of Columbia was not providing several African-American students with disabilities adequate services to best support their educational needs. At first the District of Columbia did not comply with the court order to provide the students with related services, so it took until March 1972 for them to receive an education.

  • Section 504 of the Individuals with Disability Rehabilitation Act

    The rehabilitation act of 1973 required all instiutions receiving federal funding to provide equal access and opportunities to persons with disabilities.

  • Education for Handicapped Children Act

    The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (or P.L. 94-142) guaranteed a free, appropriate, public education for children with special needs. It also required school districts to provide a continuum of services. Diisabilities under this law were: autism, deaf-blindness, developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, specific learning disabilities, and speech/language impairments.

  • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School Disctrict, Westchester County, New York, vs. Ann Rowley

    Ann Rowley's parents requested a sign language interpreter for her in school, even though the school district felt she was performing well in school without one. The court ruled that school districts are only required to provide "the basic floor of opportunity" instead of using any and all available services to ensure the child excels.

  • Daniel R.R. vs. State Board of Education

    This case established the "two-part test" to establish whether a district is adhering to IDEA's least restrictive environment clause. The first part of the test is to figure out whether the child's education needs can be met in a general education setting with support. The second part is to decide if the school district has made every effort to include the child as much as possible.

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

    P.L. 94-142 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also included a provision for an Individualized Transition Plan when a student turned 16.

  • Americans with Disabilities Act

    The ADA required private sector businesses to provide equal opportunities and access to people with disabilities.

  • Oberti vs. The Board of Education

    Raphael Oberti's parents requested their son be placed in a general education kindergarten classroom with supports. The school district believed Oberti would be best served in a special education classroom setting. The courts ruled it would be in the best interests of Oberti to be placed in a general education classroom setting with more intensive support.

  • Cedar Rapids Community School District vs. Garrett F

    Garrett required a ventilator in order to attend school in a general education classroom setting. Previously his parents had been paying a nurse to maintain the ventilator, but they requested the school district to cover the costs. The courts ruled that a nurse was covered under "related services" and the school district was required to pay for it.

  • Individuals with Disabiltiies Education Improvement Act

    P.L. 94-142 (IDEA) was renamed and reauthorized. However, most textbooks still refer to it as IDEA. The reauthorization included provisions for districts to use a Response to Intervention Model and provide less-intensive supports for students who are beginning ot struggle instead of waiting for students to begin dramatically failing before initiating the special education process.