Special education timeline

  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. This case is used to back up judicial decisions for public education for student with disabilities.
  • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    PARC claimed the state education laws were denying children with disabilities their rights. The court ruled that the state law denying access to education to some children was unconstitutional. This was the first lawsuit to challenge such laws, and it set a new standard for education laws.
  • Mills vs. DC Board of Education

    Mills vs. DC Board of Education

    Seven children were denied an education because their home schools said that they couldn't fulfill their special needs and that they would not be able to cover all of the expenses that would be needed to educate the students. The court ruled that students with disabilities must be given a public education even if the students are unable to pay for the cost of the education.
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

    Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

    The 504 Plan is a plan developed to ensure that a child who has a disability, identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary educational institution, receives accommodations that will ensure their academic success and access to the learning environment.
  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    IDEA act ensures that all individuals with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education to meet their unique needs.
  • Tatro v. State of Texas

    Tatro v. State of Texas

    Amber Tatro was a young girl who was born with spina bifida. She required catherization every couple hours. Her parents requested that the school provide the service, and it refused. A federal district court ultimately ruled in favor of the Tatros, finding that the catherization was not a medical service, since a physician did not have to perform the procedure, and was instead a related service that the should should provide.
  • Honig v. Doe & Smith

    Honig v. Doe & Smith

    John Doe was a student at a a developmental center for disabled children. Doe had a disability which caused him considerable difficulty in controlling his impulses. When he attacked another student after being bullied he was suspended from school. His parents went to court to argue his suspension and Jack Smiths parents joined in because jack was expelled indefinitely because of an incident caused by his disability. The court ruled in favor of the children and prohibited indefinite expulsion.
  • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

    Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

    A six year old boy with down syndrome was placed in a half-day special education class with the other half spent in a tradition Pre-Kindergarten. After a period of time, it was determined that Daniel was not benefiting from the placement in the traditional Pre-Kindergarten class and was placed in a separate classroom. His parents argued that he benefited more from being in the half-day gen-ed class, but the courts ruled in favor of the school, as his LRE was a separate classroom.
  • Sacramento City USD v. Rachel H.

    Sacramento City USD v. Rachel H.

    An 11-year old girl with moderate intellectual disabilities was denied access to the general education classroom placement because the school district deemed Rachel's disability to be too severe for her the benefit from such a placement. The court found that Rachel would receive considerable non-academic and academic benefits if placed in a regular classroom, and that her presence and the presence of her services, would not have a negative impact on non-disabled students.
  • No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

    No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

    No Child Left Behind Act introduces national standards for education. It requires that states set targets for overall achievement and for specific categories of students. Teachers now must be highly qualified in a specific area. Finally, it provided the parents with more control over their Childs education.
  • Assistive Technology Act

    Assistive Technology Act

    Under the law, each U.S. state and territory receives a grant to fund an Assistive Technology Act Project (ATAP). These projects provide services to persons with disabilities for their entire life span, as well as to their guardians, service providers, and agencies and other entities that are involved in providing services such as education and employment to persons with disabilities. It provides technologies such as wheelchairs, speech generating devices, hearing aid, and much more.
  • PV vs. the School District of Philadelphia

    PV vs. the School District of Philadelphia

    This case was filed on behalf of four children with autism, the suit argues that the school district’s “Automatic Autism Transfer Policy,” requiring children with autism to move from school to school, violates the IDEA Act. In 2014 the courts came to a settlement that the schools must notify parents of students with autism in grades K-8 about the school placement process.
  • Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., No. 19-1269

    Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., No. 19-1269

    A student and her parents filed suit against the Minnesota Department of Education. The high schooler’s anxiety and depression prevented her from accessing the general education curriculum, the district found the student ineligible for IDEA services based on her above-average academic performance. The court ruled in favor of the Child, as she was eligible for an IEP program.
  • Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W., 76 IDELR 234

    Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W., 76 IDELR 234

    A Texas district violated the IDEA by waiting almost 100 days to refer an academically gifted fifth-grader with oppositional defiant disorder and other disabilities for a special education evaluation. The Court ruling stated that the district did violate its child find obligation.
  • Special Ed Parents v. Ohio School Districts

    Special Ed Parents v. Ohio School Districts

    In a case representing 260,000 students in Ohio's public education system, parents all across Ohio were unsatisfied with the Ohio school system, claiming that the schools were not providing their disabled students in Ohio proper education. The court decided the advisory committee will have a year to come up with a plan that includes better ways to specialize education. If Disability Rights Ohio doesn't see improvement in inclusion and test scores in three years, the case could go back to court.

Plan projects on a visual timeline

Map milestones, phases, deadlines, and key events in one place so the sequence is easier to see and share. Timetoast is a timeline maker for work, school, research, and stories.