-
This decision began a period of questioning from parents that had children with disabilities. They wondered why the ruling of Brown didn't also apply to their children. Parents and advocates then initiated numerous court cases in the 1960s and early 1970s, arguing that their children deserved the same educational protections of the Brown ruling under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. "No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the law". -
PARC challenged a state law that denied education to children they deemed "unable to profit from public school attendance". Parents and lawyers that supported PARC argued it wasn't necessary nor rational to deem children with special needs ineducable. The court ruled that the children were entitled to receive free public education and that parents had the right to be notified before changes were made to their children's educational program. -
The EHA ensured that all children with disabilities had access to free and appropriate public education (FAPE). It mandated schools to provide equal opportunities for students with disabilities. It also required schools to evaluate students and develop individualized education programs (IEPs) that addressed their specific needs in the classroom. Congress has reauthorized and amended this act five times. -
A student spent most of her time wandering the halls of her school instead of attending her SpEd classes. The school sought to expel her on disciplinary grounds. The court agreed with the student’s mother that expulsion denied her daughter a FAPE. -
Parents of five students with severe disabilities claimed that their children tended to regress during the usual breaks in the school year and called on the schools to provide instruction for more than 180 days. The court agreed and ordered the schools to extend the school year for these students. As a result, school districts are required to provide extended school year (ESY) services if an IEP team determines they are necessary for a student to receive a FAPE. -
Amy Rowley, a 4th grade student, required hearing related services during school, including a sign language interpreter. Her school withdrew her sign language services because the interpreter reported Amy didn’t make use of her services. Her parents contended that she was not receiving an appropriate public education. SCOTUS ruled that because Amy was making satisfactory progress in school without her interpreter, she was receiving an appropriate education. -
Necessitates states to make available appropriate and free public education to children ages 3 through 5 who are disabled. The law makes a requirement for states that offer interdisciplinary educational services to disabled toddlers, infants, and their families to receive financial grants. These financial grants act as incentives for states to provide for children from birth to age 2 that have disabilities. Also stimulates the development and validation of infant development schedules and tests. -
SCOTUS ruled that schools could not recommend expulsion or suspend a student with disabilities for more than 10 days. -
United States Congress reauthorization of the EHA to change the name and place more focus on the individual, as opposed to a condition that individual may have. Promotes research and technology development, details on transition programs for students post-high school and programs that educate children in their neighborhood schools, as opposed to separate schools. -
An elementary school student with autism and ADHD had serious academic and behavioral issues. In 4th grade, his progress worsened, so his parents put him in a private school, where he showed substantial improvement. When they tried to place him back in public school, the school team’s IEP development didn’t improve. His parents placed him back in private school and requested a due process meeting to have his tuition reimbursed by the school district. SCOTUS ordered the school to pay his tuition.