-
Brown v. Board of Education
Oliver Brown - A parent of a child denied access to an all white school in Topeka, KS, claimed segregation in schools violated the constitutions equal protection clause. Brown v. Board of Education -
Brown v. Board of Education - Federal Court
Federal court - The court "dismissed his claim, ruling that the segregated public schools were "substantially" equal enough to be constitutional under the Plessy doctrine" (PBS, 2006).Mr. Brown appealed the Federal Courts decision to the Supreme Court. -
Brown v. Board of Education - Supreme Court
The court ruled in favor of Mr. Brown in a unanimous decision."The decision held that racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (PBS, 2006). -
Brown v. Board of Education - How it helps
Segregating children due to race, religion, or learning ability stifles their ability to learn. All children are capable and deserving of an equal education by educators who have a passion for teaching students.
"Students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools—regardless of a student’s own economic status—have stronger academic outcomes than students in schools with concentrated poverty" (The Century Foundation, 2017). Students have higher test scores and retention rates. -
Brown v. Board of Education - Final Decisions
The court pointed out that congress did not explicitly mean for the 14th Amendment to integrate schools, it also did not prohibit integration. The court also concluded that even if the black and white schools were equal in educational aspects, segregating children was not equal and there for segregation in schools was unconstitutional. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children(PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
"In 1971, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a state law that allowed public schools to deny education to certain children, namely those who had not “attained a mental age of 5 years”"(Li, 2013).
PARC v. Pennsylvania -
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Opposing Views
PARC - Believed all children can benefit from education and the earlier they receive an education the better their quality of life will be improved. State - Denied children who did not have a mental age of 5 by the first grade or age 8 the right to public education. Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine (2009) stated, " Children evaluated as uneducable because of below-average IQ scores were assigned to the Department of Public Welfare for training in state-run institutions" (Ch. 1.1, para. 11). -
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - How it helps
An inclusive classroom as we know it today happened because of PARC's stance that all children deserve an equal education. Putting students of all abilities together help not only the students with special needs learn from their "average" peers, but the peers learn from those students as well. Students learn how to work together, mentor one another as well as learn how to treat everyone equally. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Court Ruling
The U.S. District Judge ruled the former laws were unconstitutional and required the state provide free education for all students ages 3-21. According to Li (2013) the schools were also required "to provide sufficient education and training for all “exceptional” children, to the level of those given to their peers. In line with these new requirements, the Commonwealth could no longer deny any child with disabilities access to any free public program of education and training" (para. 4). -
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
The Rowley family had a daughter who needed a sign language interpreter in the classroom due to her disability. The school believed this to be unnecessary. "The Rowleys then brought an action in the United State District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the administrators’ denial of the sign language interpreter constituted a denial of the “free appropriate public education” guaranteed by the Act" (Whitted Takiff Law, n.d.). -
Board of Education v. Rowley- Districts Case
Board of Education v. Rowley The school provided Amy with and IEP and the IEP stated she would have a device to help interpretations. Her parents wanted a professional interpreter and the school deemed Amy didn't use this therefore didn't need that service. After an administrative hearing was held and the interpreter still denied the parents took this case to court. -
Board of Education v. Rowley- Ruling
The Supreme court ruled that the law meant that handicapped children would not just be given free education but in fact the schools were required to give them equal education. The court "clarified “appropriate” education Due process procedures to determine an appropriate education were reaffirmed by the Court" (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine 2009). -
Board of Education v. Rowley - How it helps
The Rowley case has helped families and children ensure their children have equal rights to education. IDEA, formally EHA, now not only affords these students the rights to equal education, but also gives them the opportunity to be provided the services they need in and out of the classroom.
