The Evolution of Quality Education

  • Brown v. Board

    Brown v. Board

    Brown v. Board ended the separate but equal era. This made it to where students were not deprived of equal education opportunity.
  • Hobson v.Hansen

    Hobson v.Hansen

    Hobson v. Hansen ended the "tracking" of students era. During that time students who fell within an minority or were poor were not educated equally. This violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. This made it to where all students were educated equally.
  • Diana v. State Board of Education

    Diana v. State Board of Education

    Diana v. State Board of Education made it to where students who are linguistically different can be tested in both English and the language they primarily speak in. This also made it to where students cannot be placed in special education classes based off of a culturally biased IQ test. Making it where all cultural heritages are treated equally.
  • Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states that all children regardless of the severity of their intellectual disability must guarantee free public education, in the most integrated environment. Also parents do have the overall say in education decisions for their children.
  • Larry P. v. Riles

    Larry P. v. Riles

    Larry P. v. Riles was a landmark case that established that students could not be placed in classes for children with intellectual disability based on the color of their culture or race. They were instructed to make assessments that did not discriminate against minority children. Aiming for more equal class placements.
  • Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia

    Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia

    Mills v. Board of Education, District of Columbia was an extension to the previous case. This expanded the constitutional right for students with disabilities to learn within a classroom regardless of how well they can function. They also have the right to more things that match their needs. More ways to protect their rights were also added.
  • Lau v. Nichols

    Lau v. Nichols

    Lau v. Nichols was a huge case regarding bilingual students. This case brought light to the fact that students who were bilingual were not receiving the same education. They weren't getting the textbooks, classes, teachers, or curriculum they would need to thrive like a normal student. This case made it where bilingual students were granted the same educational opportunity.
  • Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley states that students with hearing impairment must be given the reasonable opportunity to learn.
  • Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

    Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

    Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education stated that students with down Syndrome should learn in a normal classroom enviorment. After a two-prong test was established to see where students should be placed within the LRE. First you must prove that you can make progress and learn within a general classroom. Second the pupil must be maximized to the extent appropriate.
  • Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

    Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

    Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School Distict made it to where students must be placed in general education classrooms with supplementary aids and services must be offered to all students with disabilities, before looking into more segregated placements. Which will help students learn with their disabilities without being sheltered away from other students.
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

    Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

    Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. made it more clear that related services were required. Meaning school boards were required to continue nursing services to the disabled students who would need them within the school hours.
  • Schaffer v. Weast

    Schaffer v. Weast

    Schaffer v. Weast makes it to where the due process has changed. This hearing makes it to where if parents do not approve of the IEP insisted on by the school district the parents can refuse the IEP.
  • Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

    Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy

    Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy states that parents do not have to reimburst the cost of experts because only attorney fees are addressed in the IDEA.
  • Winkelman v. Panama City School District

    Winkelman v. Panama City School District

    This court case is very important. This court case gave the right to parents to be able to represent their children in IDEA related court cases.
  • Forrest Grove School District v. T. A.

    Forrest Grove School District v. T. A.

    Forrest Grove School District v. T. A. granted a tuition refund after a student with multiple disabilities had regular classes with no special education help and never got services from the school.

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.