-
Watson v. City of Cambridge
The Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a child who was "weak in mind' and could not benefit from instruction, was troublesome to other children, made "unusual noises", and was unable to take "ordinary, decent, physical care of himself" could be expelled form public school. -
Compulsary Attendance Laws
By 1918, compulsory laws were in place by all states. Although, children with disabilities were still often excluded from public schools. -
Beattie v. Board of Education
In the Beattie v. Board of Education case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that officials could exclude a student with disabilities, even though that student had attended public school until the fifth grade. -
Brown v. Board of Education
"The civil rights movement, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), provided the impetus for subsequent legislation and litigation granting students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education" (Yell, 2016). -
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the state's existing compulsory attendance legislation did not require the state to provide a free public education for the "feeble minded" or to children who were "mentally deficient" and who, because of their limited intelligence, were unable to reap the benefits of a good education. -
Amendments to the ESEA
These amendments provided federal funding to assist states to expand programs for student with disabilities. -
Education of the Handicapped Act
This Act expanded state grant programs for children with disabilities, provided grants to train special education teachers, and created regional resource centers. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA
The state of Pennsylvania was required to provide students with mental retardation with a free appropriate education. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
Held that because segregation in public schools by race was illegal, it would be unconstitutional for the D.C. Board of Education to deprive students with disabilities from receiving an education. -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
This Act prohibits discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities in programs that receive federal funding. -
Education Amendments
These amendments incorporated the rights from PARC and Mills into law. -
Education for All Handicapped Children Act
This Act provides federal funding to states that agree to educate eligible students with disabilities as required by EAHCA, established the rights of eligible students with disabilities to FAPE in the least restrictive environment, requires schools to develop IEPs, and established procedural safeguards. -
Larry P. v. Riles
The court found there was an over representation of African Americans in special education programs based on biased, cultural and unethical stigmatization from IQ testing and responded with changes including; IQ tests should not be used to identify black children into special education without approval by the court, schools should eliminate and monitor misappropriate education placement and reevaluate those who were currently placed with an approved IQ test. -
Armstrong v. Kline
The Court found that the Commonwealth's 180 day rule violated the class's and named plaintiffs' rights to a free appropriate public education under the Act. -
Board of Education v. Rowley
Tis court case led to the elaboration of what is deemed appropriate under FAPE. The decision also held that the "Procedural Safeguards" of the IDEA are just as equally important as the substantive program offered to the disabled child. -
Smith v. Robinson
The Supreme Court decided that because the EAHCA was the sole source for relief in cases brought under law, attorneys could not sue under other laws to collect their fees. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, a school board in Texas had to provide catheterization services during class hours to a student with spina bifida. The case defines the distinction between "school health services" and "medical services". -
The Handicapped Children's Protection Act
This Act allows parents to recover attorney's fees if they prevail in a due process hearing or court case. -
Education of the Handicapped Amendments
These amendments created federal financial incentives to educate infants (birth through age two) using early intervention strategies, requires IFSPs for eligible children and their families, and extended the EAHCA's Part B programs to 3- to 5- year- olds in participating states. -
Honig v. Doe
In Honig, the Court ruled that a school district may not unilaterally exclude or expel a disabled child from the classroom setting for dangerous or disruptive conduct growing out of their disabilities. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire School District
In this case, the Court held that even severally disabled students are in fact given the highest priority and protection under the act itself. Related services were also defines in this case. -
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education
In this case, congress recognized that the general education classroom was not always best suitable for all students. This helped to clarify LRE and what is deemed an appropriate public education. -
Individuals with Disabilities Act
This Act renamed the EAHCA the IDEA, added traumatic brain injury and autism as new disability categories under IDEA, added a transition requirement to the IEP for students age 16 or older, added language that states were not immune from lawsuits under the 11th Amendment for violations of the IDEA, and changed to "people first" language. -
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon established that is placement outside the classroom is necessary, the school district must include the child in as many school programs with children who do not have disabilities :to the maximum extent appropriate." -
Sacramento City Inified School District Board of Education v. Rachel Holland
In this case decision, Judge David E. Levi identified four factors to consider when determining whether placement in the general education classroom is appropriate for a child with a disability. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments
These amendments added new IEP contents and changed the IEP team, added new disciplinary provisions, requires states to offer mediation to parents prior to due process hearings, and reorganized the structure of the IDEA. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.
In this case, the U. S. supreme Court ruled that the 1990 IDEA requires school boards to provide continuous nursing services to disabled students who need them during the school day. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
This Act defines "highly qualified" special education teacher, removed short-term objectives requirements for IEPs, except for students with severe disabilities, prohibits states from requiring school districts to use a discrepancy formula for determining eligibility of students with learning disabilities, and encourages the use of a response-to-intervention model to determine if students were learning disabled. -
Gaskin v. Pennsylvanaia Department of Education
This case led to a signed provisional agreement stating the Department of Education will undertake a series of reforms in special education processes and procedures including data collection, compliance monitoring, plan approval, IEP format and complaint resolution.