0d41dda87e835fe2930eb947922f95eb

Important events in the history of special education in the United States, including relevant events related to inclusion.

  • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (P.A.R.C) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (P.A.R.C) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

    A case filed, over a law that gave public schools the authority to deny free public education to children who had reached the age of 8, yet had not reached the mental age of 5. This was the first major legal case to provide equality to students with disabilities in the country. The federal court decided that these students should not be excluded and should have equality. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/pennsylvania-association-retarded-citizens-parc-v-commonwealth-pennsylvania-1972
  • Mills v. Board of education of the District of Columbia

    Mills v. Board of education of the District of Columbia

    A lawsuit, on behalf of 7 children who had been denied placement in a public educational program because of mental, behavioral, physical or emotional disabilities. The district of Columbia argued that they lacked the necessary financial resources, The Court ruled that the State must provide “adequate alternative education services” and “prior hearing and periodic review of the child’s status, progress, and the adequacy of any educational alternative.”
  • Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

    Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

    The law mandates that children with disabilities, including students in public or private schools or other care facilities, are to be educated, to the maximum extent that is appropriate, with children who are not disabled. Means that with a student’s IEP, they must also be in as many regular education classes as possible. This ensures the student has social experiences.
  • Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA or EHA)

    Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA or EHA)

    President Gerald Ford signed into law the Education for all Handicapped children Act (Public Law 94-142). Which required schools to ensure all children, regardless of their disability, receive free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Students with learning disabilities would now have their special needs identified and they would be provided with a special education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country.
  • Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    Amy Rowley was a deaf student, whose school refused to provide a sign language interpreter even though she might’ve benefited from one, Her parents filed suit arguing violation of the EAHCA and FAPE. In a 6-3 vote, The supreme court sided that public schools are not required by law to provide a sign language interpreter to deaf students who are otherwise receiving an equal and adequate education.
  • Honig v. Doe.

    Honig v. Doe.

    A case in which a student identified as John Doe was accusing the California school board of violating the EAHCA and FAPE when it indefinitely suspended him for violent and disruptive behavior that was related to their disability. Federal district court granted Doe's request to return him to his existing educational placement pending his IEP review, it was determined schools cannot suspend students with disabilities for more than 5 days, it violates the “stay-put” provision of the act.
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    Changed the law’s name from EHA to IDEA. It added traumatic brain injury and autism as new disability categories. The law includes 6 principles which are, FAPE, LRE, evaluation, parent/student participation, and all procedural safeguards for participants. It also has 4 sections which include, general provisions, special education services, early intervention, and national activities to improve education of children with disabilities.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XMndYNEGFA
  • Cedar Rapids v. Garret F.

    Cedar Rapids v. Garret F.

    a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" despite arguments from the school district concerning the costs of the services.” The exception for "medical services" from IDEA's related services provision only exempts services which must be provided by a physician.
  • No Child left Behind Act

    No Child left Behind Act

    U.S federal law initially proposed by George W. Bush aimed at improving public primary and secondary schools, based on stronger accountability for results. The act required states to develop yearly assessments in reading and mathematics skills. The goal was to close the achievement gap. Public schools had to demonstrate adequate progress towards raising the scores of all students to a level of proficient. Teachers were also required to meet higher standards for certification.
  • IDEA reauthorized

    IDEA reauthorized

    Signed by George W. Bush the act established a new requirement calling for a “summary of academic and functional performance” to be given to every student who exits special education by graduating with a regular diploma or exceeding the age for special education under state law. Also, if you are the parent of a child with disability, you represent your child’s interests.
  • Winkleman v. Parma City School District

    Winkleman v. Parma City School District

    A civil suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Kennedy held for the seven-justice majority that parents may file suit under IDEA. Justice Kennedy declined to reach the question whether parents may represent the interests of their children, instead concluding that IDEA created a set of independently enforceable rights in parents.