-
Brown v. Board of Education
“Segregation of students by race ruled unconstitutional; children deprived of equal educational opportunity. Ended ‘separate but equal’ schools for white and black pupils. Used as a precedent the children with disabilities cannot be excluded from a public education.” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 42) -
Education of the Handicapped Act
This law began the journey towards a free appropriate public education being available to all students with disabilities. Five years after this law came to be, it was amended by Pl 94-142. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
“Established the constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to a public education, matched to their needs, including specialized instruction, regardless of their functional level. Presumed absence of fiscal resources is not a valid reason for failing to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. Elaborate due process safeguards established to protect the rights of the child...” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 42) -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
“...guarantee of free public education to all children with intellectual disability ages 6 through 21 regardless of degree of impairment or associated disabilities. Established the right of parents to participate in educational decisions affecting their children. State to engage in extensive efforts to locate and serve (‘child-find’) all students with intellectual disability.” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 42) -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
“No individual can be excluded, because of their disability, from participating in or benefiting from any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, which includes schools (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997)... individuals are eligible for services if they have a physical/mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, have a record of such an impairment, or are regarded as having such an impairment by others." (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 50) -
Lau v. Nichols
“A milestone case in the field of bilingual education. U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted that ‘there is not equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education.’ Required schools to offer special language programs to English learners in order to confer equal educational opportunity.” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 42) -
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
“To assure all handicapped children have available to them…a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States...to provide for the education of all handicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children. [Section 601©]” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 43) -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(PL 101-476) IDEA includes access to “a free appropriate public education, the least restrictive environment, an Individualized Education Program, Procedural due process, nondiscriminatory assessment, and parental participation.” Evolved from PL 94-142 and expanded on the important focuses and resources that were introduced in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Services individuals aged 3-21. (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 43) -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(PL 108-446)The IDEIA of 2004 [has] increased the focus of special education from simply ensuring access to education to improving the educational performance of students with disabilities and aligning special education services with the larger National School improvement efforts that include standards assessments and accountability [i.e. greater conformity with the No Child Left Behind Act]. (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005, pp. 2-3)” (Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 47) -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
“The Supreme Court, by unanimous vote, affirmed the rights of parents to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases. Seen as an expansion of parental involvement and the definition of a free appropriate public education. Interpreted to mean that IDEA conveys enforceable rights to parents as well as their children. “(Emeritus & Bouck, 2020, pg. 42)
