Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education laid the foundation for the evolution of special education. This decision declared that it was discriminatory for students to be placed in separate school based on their differences. The ruling was mainly directed toward racial discrimination, but soon made precedence for lawsuits regarding the segregation of children with disabilities.
Challenging Traditions in Special Education"The introduction and solidification of learning disabilities as a recognized category of disability rearranged and expanded the identified population of children with disabilities; the linking of disability with poverty, cultural deprivation, and minority status substantially altered views on the etiology and diagnosis of disability, especially in the area of mental retardation, shifting the ways in which discussions of special education services and purposes were framed."
(Robert L. Osgood)
President's Panel on Mental Retardation-President Kennedy appoints a 26 member council to discuss problems mentally retarded children had to live with.
-Their report included strengthened educational programs, increased educational opportunities to learn about mental retardation, and public education and information programs.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)-Enacted by congress in 1965 to address the inequality of underprivileged children.
-The ESEA created and ensured disadvantaged students access to quality education.
-ESEA was amended in 1966 “to establish a grant program to help states in the initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects for the education of handicapped children” (www.wrightslaw.com).
The Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230)-Congress replaced ESEA with the Education of the Handicapped Act
-This act “established a program aimed at stimulating the States to develop educational programs and resources for individuals with disabilities” (www.wrightslaw.com).
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania-First "right-to-education" case in the United States.
-Secured a quality education to all students, including those with intellectual disabilities.
-Also established the standard that each child must be offered an individualized education and that children should be placed in the least restrictive environment possible. (pilcop.org)
Congressional Investigation of 1972Congress launched investigation of the standards of the education of disabled children. They found less than half of the 8 million children with disabilities in the US were not receiving a suitable education. They stated if this injustice remained, these kids would not reach their full potentials in life, become a burden to society, and leave the ed system to blame. This sparked new legislation "'after several court cases establishing in law the right to education for all handicapped children.'"
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866-Seven school-age children were denied placement in a public educational program due to alleged mental, behavioral, physical or emotional disabilities.
-Expanded PARC impact on right to education.
-Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that no child could be denied a public education because of “mental, behavioral, physical or emotional handicaps or deficiencies.”
Section 504-Part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 was created due to the amount of cases that were being presented of discrimination based upon disability.
-Described as an “anti-discrimination statute that requires the needs of students with disabilities to be met just like the needs of non-disabled students are met”
-Congress also launched an investigation into the educational status of children with disabilities and found that millions were not receiving an appropriate education.
The Impacts of American Culture in the Early to Mid Twentieth Century on the Overrepresentation of Minority ChildrenIn 1975, congress found that poor African-American children were over-represented in special education. This problem was due, impart, to mislabeling. Also, the culture of the years preceding 1975 placed African-Americans in general at a disadvantage when it came to education. This in turn likely left the children identified by Congress in 1975 without an adequate support system in their homes due to the failures of the education system as a whole in the preceding decades.
Public Law 94-142In 1975 Congress enacted Public Law 94-142. This law guaranteed the right to education to all handicapped children. It also included an elaborate system of safeguards to ensure that these rights were protected.
Public Law94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975-Enacted in 1975, this law gave all children with disabilities the right to have access to education and due process of law.
-This law also established a process “to hold State and local educational agencies accountable for providing services for all handicapped children” (www.wrightslaw.com).
-Congress also included a procedural checks and balances system that was designed to protect the rights of children and their parents (www.wrightslaw.com).
ARMSTRONG v. KLINE CIV. A. NOS. 78-172, 78-132 AND 78-133.-Five handicapped children and their families filed three class-action law suits after being denied a free public education in excess of the 180 day school year.
-Supreme Court rules in favor of an extended school year (ESY) for students with IEPs.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176-Supreme Court rendered its opinion regarding IDEA and FAPE (free appropriate public education).
-The Court opined that the IDEA requires proposed special education and related services to be “reasonably calculated to enable [the student] to receive educational benefits.”
-FAPE must be “tailored to the unique needs of the handicapped child by means of an individualized educational program (IEP)”
Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Amber Tatro 468 U.S. 883Supreme Court rules that medical treatment, such as clean intermittent catheterization, that is necessary for students with disabilities to attend school must be provided by the school under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305Supreme Court outlines protocol designed to protect emotionally disturbed children from school officials.
The Court rules that schools shall not expell students for behavior related to thier handicaps.
Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7-The Supreme Court rules that parents can be reimbursed for private educational placement for their children with disabilities.
-The school does not necessarily need to meet the IDEA's definition of FAPE.
-Outlines which requisites of private educational placement can be reimbursed.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004-Also known as IDEA; amendment of a law from 1975.
-2 purposes of IDEA: Provide an education that meets a child’s unique needs and prepares the child for further education, employment, and independent living; To protect the rights of both children with disabilities and their parents.
-Outlines a process for states to establish the goals and standards of students with disabilities to be consistent with the goals and standards of non-disabled students.
-Gives equal rights in general ed setting.
Winkelman v. Parma City School District (No. 05-983)-Jacob Winkelman, a 6-year-old autistic child, had an IEP developed by Parma City School District which his parents wanted to be a part of. The school district and his parents couldn’t reach an agreement and proceeded in an “impartial due process hearing.” Jacob’s parents were unsatisfied with the outcome of the hearing and sought further action within the Supreme Court representing themselves.
-RULING: parents have legal rights protected under IDEA; can pursue IDEA claims on their own.
Doug C. v. Hawaii (9th Cir.)-This court case ruled in favor of Doug C, Spencer C’s father, who was left out of one of Spencer’s IEP meetings on November 9, 2009. There was no representation of Spencer himself, or a member of his family at this meeting, which violated his rights and his parent’s rights.
-Doug requested a due process hearing, in which he lost, and decided to appeal that decision with the U.S. District Court. They reversed the decision.
Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 14-1261-Supreme Court rules in favor of plaintiff over allegations of a school district employee's violation of the stay-put provision of IDEA.