-
Brown v. Board of Education
The plaintiffs argued that the keeping white and black students separate violated the equal protections and due process clauses of the 14th amendment. Outcome: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled to end segregation in schools based on race because it was unconstitutional. -
Civil Rights Act (1964)
A pivotal moment in the civil rights movement, the goal of this act was to create equal treatment for every American. Outcome: Signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)
As a way to combat the war on poverty, the government wanted to provide federal funding to assist states and their education programs. The goal was to equalize educational opportunities. Outcome: The federal government directed federal funding to the most disadvantaged children in poverty with the goal of eliminating poverty. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA
This case used the precedent that Brown v. Board set by using the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. The goal was to end the exclusion of students with disabilities in public schools. Outcome: The court ruled that the state could not deny an individual's right to equal access to education based on an intellectual or developmental disability status. Therefore, the state of Pennsylvania was required to provide a free and appropriate education. -
Mills v. Board of Education
This was another case that was brought about to provide students with disabilities equal access to education and used the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Outcome: The court ruled that because segregation in public schools based on race was unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional to deprive students with disabilities an education. -
The Rehabilitation Act-504 (1973)
The purpose of the act was to clarify the protections of elementary and secondary students with disabilities. Outcome: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
-Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 -
Larry P. v. Riles
This case was brought by African American students who were placed in EMR classes and claimed that they were wrongly placed. They claimed that the testing was racially biased and that the number of African Americans placed in EMR classes was disproportionate. Outcome: The school district was banned from using IQ tests for African American students who have been referred for special education. -
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975)
This Act was an effort to protect the rights, meet the needs, and improved the results for children with disabilities and their families. Outcome: States who followed requirements would receive federal funding, students with disabilities would receive a FAPE in the least restrictive environment, and schools were required to develop IEPs for students with special needs. This act also established procedural safeguards for students with special needs. -
Armstrong v. Kline
The state of Pennsylvania refused to fund an education for all students who were required to attend an extended school year. Outcome: Court ruled that this was a violation of the right to a free and appropriate education. -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley
The topic of this case was about what it means for students with special needs to have an appropriate education. Outcome: The court ruled that the EAHCA did not require that special education services help students reach their full potential. Instead, they simply need to help students improve. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
This case was brought about when a school refused to provide a common medical service (catheterization) to a student with spina bifida. Outcome: Court ruled that services that are necessary to enable children to benefit from special education must be provided. -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE
This case was about children with disabilities and their families securing access to the safegaurds under the EHA, including the participation in IEPs. Outcome: The courts have authority on IEP disputes including reimbursment. Furthermore, parents who unilaterally change their child's placement must be financially responsible, unless the placement is deemed to be the most appropriate. -
EHA Amendment (1986)
Amended the EHA to include part H which addresses the needs of handicapped infants and toddlers from birth to age two and their families. Outcome: Created federal financial incentives using early intervention strategies, required IFSPs, and extended the EAHCA's part B programs to ages three to five. -
Honig v. Doe
Two students with disabilities were suspended for behavior and argued to let them back to their schools. Outcome: The Supreme Court further ruled that the EHA prohibited the exclusion of disabled children even for dangerous or disruptive conduct resulting from their disabilities. -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education
A child with autism who was previously in a half general education setting with peers without disabilities, was then moved to a full special education setting by the school. Outcome: The court ruled that the school officials were able to determine what would benefit the student and what was considered the least restrictive environment. -
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
A civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas open to the general public. Outcome: Individuals with disabilities have the same rights as everyone else no matter where they are and what they are doing. -
EHA Amendment (1990)
Reauthorization of EHA. Outcome: Expanded the list of disabilities to include autism and traumatic brain injuries. It also added a transition requirement to IEPs for students 16 or older as well as began to "people first language." -
Oberti v. Board of Education
This case is about children with special needs being educated in general education classrooms, if possible. Outcome: Schools are not allowed remove a child from a general ed classroom if educating the child in the regular classroom, with supplementary aids and support services, can be achieved satisfactorily. -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland
An 11 year old girl with moderate intellectual disabilities was denied placement in a general education classroom because the school deemed she would not benefit from it. Outcome: The court ruled that inclusion was a more persuasive outcome which paved the way for other cases. -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA
This case was intended to make sure that schools were complying with IDEA and that inclusion was working properly. Outcome: Federal statutes protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities was enforced. Updates to inclusion training, monitoring, and enforcing were made. -
EHA/IDEA Amendment (1997)
Additions to this act helped enhance IEPs and provide rights to parents of children with disabilties. Outcome: Added contents to IEPs and the IEP team and required states to offer mediation prior to due process hearings. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F.
A student in a wheelchair required one-on-one assistance to attend school and the school did not feel that they were responsible to provide it. Outcome: The court ruled that under IDEA, the school is responsible because it is not medical in nature. -
No Child Left Behind (2001)
This law updates and reinforces the role of the federal government to hold schools accountable for student outcomes and close the achievement gap. Outcome: States were not required to comply, but would lose federal funding if not. Schools must test students and report the results. If schools do not reach the level of their programs determined proficiency for multiple years, sanctions are enforced. All teachers must hold a bachelors degree and be highly qualified. -
IDEA Amendment (2004)
This amendment focuses on meeting the unique needs of each individual student. Outcome: Created provisions that impact how schools identify students with learning disabilities, develop and implement IEPs, as well as planning for transition from high school to college, and highly qualified teachers. Focused on long term IEP objectives and prohibits discrepancy formula for determining eligibility. -
Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District
Some of the lower court rulings about the benefits that students with disabilities were receiving were in question. In Endrew's case, there seemed to be an argument for more benefits. Outcome: this case clarified the substantive standard for determining whether a student's IEP is sufficient to enable a student with a disability to make progress appropriate progress considering the circumstance.