Module 1: History of Special Education and Inclusive Education Timetoast Timeline

By sxbii
  • Brown v. Board of Education

    Brown v. Board of Education
    In the supreme court case of Brown v. Board of Education, the court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and unequal. The court ruled that school segregation violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. For the first time, the court ruled in favor of those experiencing inequalities in schools and was the stepping stone for future legislation for those with disabilities.
  • Department of Public Welfare v. Haas

    Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
    The supreme court of Illinois ruled that law did not require giving the “feeble-minded” or “mentally deficient” children public and free education. It was believed they would not reap the benefits of free education because of their “lack of intelligence”. Education was not always advocated for all children, but now is

    The case PARC v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had the state agree to provide free public education for children with "mental retardation". The state was not allowed to deny these children. Before this, the state could exclude these particular individuals from public education. They also wanted these particular students to stay in general education classrooms instead of special classrooms, which could be isolating.
  • P.L 94-142 1975

    P.L 94-142 1975
    This public law was known as the mainstreaming law. It is what first denied a less restrictive environment. The law stated that students that are disabled be placed in less restrictive environments. This would help them interact with others who are non-impaired students. It established that states provide free and public education for children with disabilities from the ages 5 to 18.
  • Board of education v. Rowley

    Board of education v. Rowley
    This supreme court case, clearly defined 'free and appropriate public education (FAPE). This case also marked the first time the court used and interpreted the PL. 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act). The ruling stated that the child must receive educational benefits and support, but not be the best.
  • Honig v Doe

    Honig v Doe
    The court ruling, in this case, favored students with an IEP. It ruled that students cannot be expelled for behaviors relating to their disability. They could not be expelled or suspended for more than 10 days unless it involved weapons, drugs, or significant bodily injuries.
  • IDEA P.L. 101-476

    IDEA P.L. 101-476
    Amendments to the education for all handicapped children act of 1975 were passed. It established the "people-first" language when referring to individuals with disabilities. It added traumatic brain injury (TBI) and autism as new categories of disabilities. It extended the provisions for due process and confidentiality for both students and parents. It also extended education services to include social work, assertive technology, and rehabilitation services.
  • IDEA P.L. 105-17

    IDEA P.L. 105-17
    IDEA '97 required that all students continued to receive services, even if they had been expelled from school, and also required that schools have a greater responsibility to make sure students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum. The law required a general education teacher to be part of the IEP team and a behavior management plan in the IEP if the student with disabilities has behavioral problems.
  • IDEAI P.L 108-4416

    IDEAI P.L 108-4416
    The federal law increased the standards for special education licensure and raised federal funds for students for early intervention services for students who do not need special education or related services. IDEAI ensures that children with disabilities are to a free appropriate public education that needs the student's unique needs . The law allows the districts to use response-to-intervention (RTI) to determine whether a child has a specific learning ability.