-
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
The U.S. Supreme Court decided it was against the law "to discriminate against individuals for arbitrary reasons (Garguilo & Bouck, 2020, p. 39). The separation between schools for colored and white students was outlawed, as it went against the 14th Amendment. Although race was the issue concerning this case, at this point, it served as foundation to request equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities. -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Resulted as part of the War on Poverty of President Lyndon B. Johnson, which provided federal funds to school that served poor students, with the goal of closing the achievement gap. It aimed to provide equal opportunity for all students, regardless of physical or mental disability, learning difficulties, or the need to learn English. -
Diana v. State Board of Education
A group of Spanish speaking emergent bilingual students of English were tested inappropriately and placed incorrectly in special education classes. As consequence of this case, “students cannot be placed into special education classes on the basis of IQ tests that are culturally biased” (Garguilo & Bouck, 2020, p. 42). -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The results of this case required states to guarantee free public education to all students, including students with disabilities ages 6 to 21, requesting the most integrated environment, regardless of their level of impairment. It provided the parents the right to participate in the educational choices. If local schools provided preschool, then the school needed to provide preschool opportunities to children with disabilities (CRLC, 2012; Garguilo & Bouck, 2020). -
Mills v. Board of Education
The Board of Education of the District of Columbia was suited because they were denied to enter the public school due to the fact that they had different abilities than the rest of the district’s students. The court accepted that the they should give free access to all students with disabilities, regardless of the functional level and to provide the appropriate education needed. This protected the right to appropriate education, which also advocated for sufficient funding (Wright & Wright, 2007) -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
First law that specifically protected individuals against discrimination because of a disability. It specified that no person could be excluded just because of his/her disability from any entity that received federal funding, which obviously includes schools. This works together with other programs to insure the protection of individuals with disabilities from exclusion and unequal treatment in setting such as schools, and other places (deBettencourt, 2006). -
Education for All Handicapped Children Act- (PL94-142)
This law, considered the “Bill of Rights” for students with disabilities, mandated that students that qualified for services had the right the following six components: (1) a free appropriate public education (FAPE), (2) the least restrictive environment (LRE), (3) an individualized education program (IEP), (4) procedural due process, (5) nondiscriminatory assessment, and (6) parental participation (Garguilo & Bouck, 2020). -
Reauthorized Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 99-457)
This reauthorization incorporated early intervention and provided services to families from the moment the individual with disabilities is born. It also included the individualized family service plan (IFSP) to infants and toddlers, which is a plan that coordinate services for such families (IDEA, 2020 & Garguilo & Bouck, 2020). -
American with Disabilities Act (PL 101-336)
Civil Rights legislation that directly affects people with disabilities. It parallels Section 504, prohibiting discrimination of individuals with disabilities in both public and private sectors. It required public transportation to be accessible to individuals with disabilities, among other accessible accommodations for places such as hotels, restaurants, banks, and other facilities. -
Reauthorized of Education for All Handicapped Children Act to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (PL 110-476)
It added autism and traumatic brain injury as disability categories. In order for students to qualify for IDEA, they must meet at least one of the 13 categories of disabilities identified by this law (deBettencourt, 2006). Also, as part of the students’ IEP, it was required the development of an individual transition plan (ITP) for students receiving services at age 16, to help transition to post-secondary life (IDEA, 2020). Furthermore, it expanded to serve students ages 6-21. -
Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (PL 105-17)
This reauthorization highlighted the access to the general curriculum to students with disabilities. It also modified the age for the development of an individual transition plan to 14, instead of 16. It also added related services of orientation and mobility. It also required individuals with disabilities to participate in state and district assessments. Furthermore, general educators were mandated to participate in the IEP (Garguilo & Bouck, 2020). -
Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
It, again, changed the name, adding improvement to it which basically expanded accountability and age range for birth to age 21. It also changed the details of the language to be able to widen eligibility and make it more equitable, such as changing “child” to “student” (Renner, 2018).
