Special Education Timeline

Timeline created by kaitlynhawk414
  • Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kanas

    Students were no longer allowed to be segregated because of their race. Ended "separate but equal" schools for white and black students. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Hobson v. Hansen

    Schools were no longer allowed to track students on the basis of nationally normed tests. Tracking systems violated the 14th amendment and was considered to be discrimination against poor and minority students. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Diana v. State Board of Education

    Students who speak a language other than English could not be placed in a special education class based on tests that are culturally biased. Must be tested in their first language and English. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Lau v. Nicholas

    U.S. Supreme Court ruled schools must offer special language programs for students who do not understand English. This would allow for an equal opportunity to learn to culturally diverse learners. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Public Law 94-142

    All handicapped children are entitled to a free appropriate public education with services that help meet all of their needs. The rights of handicapped children and their guardians are protected. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    Addressed the issue of the meaning of an "appropriate" education for a student with hearing impairment. They decided that students must be given a reasonable chance to learn. First interpretation of PL 94-142. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

    A student with disabilities must be allowed the chance at being placed in a general classroom with supplementary aids and services. Must be offered before considering segregated placements. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Public Law 99-457

    All preschoolers, ages 3-5, are entitled to a free appropriate public education. States will lose federal money if they do not comply with this law. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Daniel R.R. v. Sate Board of Education

    Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the appropriate class for a student with down syndrome was a segregated class. A two-prong test will be used to determine compliance with LRE. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Public Law 101-476

    This law made an important change which was to rename PL 94-142 to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This allows for the student to be placed first and not their disability. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

    U.S. Supreme Court made the decision that school health care services needed for a student to attend school qualify as related services. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Schaffer v. Weast

    U.S. Supreme court addressed the issue of who bears the burden of proof in a due process hearing of a student. The court ruled that the party seeking relief was who the burden of proof was placed on. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

    U.S. Supreme court addressed the issue on whether or not parents could get their money back for fees of an educational consultant. They determined that parents could not be reimbursed for the costs. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Winkelman v. Parma City School District

    Supreme Court votes that parents can represent their child in an IDEA-related court case. It was seen as an expansion of parent involvement and free appropriate public education. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  • Forest Grove School District v. T. A.

    Court rules that IDEA allows a student with a learning disability the opportunity to get their money back when they attend private education services because public schools don't provide free and appropriate education. Reference:
    Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2017). Teaching in todays inclusive classrooms: a universal design for learning approach. Boston: Cengage Learning.