-
After the decision made in Brown v. Board of Education many parents of children with disabilities filed lawsuits against the schools for excluding and segregating their children, thus discriminating against them
-
Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided special education and related services in isolated or rural areas.
-
Provided free Public Education for Children with Mental Disabilities.
Became the basis for Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) enacted in 1975 -
Post PARC and Mills Congress launched and investigation and found that millions of disabled children were not receiving the standard or appropriate education. This led to legislation for the handicapped children and their parents being introduced in 1972.
-
Court stated no child could be denied a public education because of “mental, behavioral, physical or emotional handicaps or deficiencies.” This held schools responsible for providing education to the children with disabilites and funds must be expended equitably.
-
Free equal public education for all, INCLUDING those with severe disabilities! Also aids parents in decisions regarding their child, and guarantees the tests and materials to evaluate the child are not racially biased
-
the 2001 NCLB act had a goal “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.”
Special ed. teachers had to meet the requirements stated in NCLB act demonstrating competence in what they teach. The goal was for adequately train personnel -
IDEA is amended with two primary purposes:
1. To meet a Childs unique needs that prepares them for individual living, employment, and further education.
2. Protect the rights of children with disabilities and their parents. -
Replaced NCLB act and provided funding to special education centers.
-
The adoption and implementation of policy and procedures that did not discriminate against the disabled children.
Provided behavior supports and interventions. Excessive use of restraint violated the students rights, this helped show the need for positive reinforcement and alternative interventions the did NOT involve restraint.