-
Compulsory Education Law
Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to enact a compulsory education law requiring every city and town to offer primary school. Parents who refused to send their children to school were fined or (in some cases) stripped of their parental rights During this time many other states enacted similar compulsory education laws. Mississippi was the last to enact a law, in 1917. Despite laws children with disabilities were often excluded from public schools. -
Watson v. City of Cambridge
One of the earliest reported cases of excluding children with disabilities. The Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the expulsion of a student solely due to poor academic ability” on the ground that the student was too “weak minded” to profit from instruction. -
Beattie v. Board of Education of Antigo
Wisconsin Supreme Court, in ordering the exclusion of a child from public school, held that “the very sight of a child with cerebral palsy will produce a depressing and nauseating effect” upon others. -
Board of Education v State, Ex. Rel. Goldman
The Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that the state statute mandating compulsory attendance for children ages 6 through 18 gave the State Department of Education the authority to exclude certain students. Although the court acknowledged a students right to an education and attend school, the gap between compulsory education and the exclusion of students with special needs, was not bridged. -
Brown v. Board of Education
The courts determined that the “separate but equal” doctrine established by the Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, in providing “separate education facilities” based race was unequal and violated the equal opportunity and due process clause of the 14th Amendment. After Brown, parents of children with disabilities began to bring lawsuits against their schools for excluding or segregating children with disabilities. The parents argued schools were discriminating against the children with disabilities. -
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the existing state legislation relating to compulsory attendance did not pertain to children who were “feeble minded” or “mentally deficient”, as they would not benefit from a free public education. -
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Provided federal funding to assist states in educating students as part of the war on poverty. -
Amendments to ESEA
The amendment provided federal funding to assist states to expand programs for children with disabilities. -
Public Law 91-230 / Education of the Handicapped Act
This provided grants to institutions of higher education to train special education teachers, expanded state grant programs for children with disabilities and created resource centers. -
P.A.R.C. v Pennsylvania
Class action suit on behalf of 14 children with developmental disabilities, stating they were being denied access to public education and their rights were being violated under the equal protection clause and due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The complaint was based in four sections: benefit of education, definition of academic experience, states cannot deny students public education, and the earlier the education, the more learning can be expected. -
Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia
In light of the PARC decision, this class action suit was brought about by seven parents who argued their children were improperly excluded from school without due process, therefore violating their 14th amendment rights. The court held that segregation based on race was unconstitutional, therefore segregation on the base of disability was also unconstitutional. The courts mandated the board provide all children with disabilities an education. -
Mills v Board of Education of the District of Columbia Cont.
Additionally, the courts outlined due process procedures for labeling, placement, and exclusion of students with disabilities including: the right to a hearing, with representation, a record, and an impartial hearing officer; the right to appeal; the right to have access to records; and the requirement of written notice at all stages of the process. With a 46 more cases filed against educational establishments, it became obvious to many that some degree of federal involvement was necessary. -
P.A.R.C. v Pennsylvania Agreement
An agreement was reached between the parties which stated that all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 must be provided a free public education and that it was best practice to educate children with special needs in a program like that provided for their peers without disabilities. -
Public Law 93-112/ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
This prohibited discrimination against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities in programs that receive federal funding, including within educational agencies. -
Public Law 94-142/ Education for All Handicapped Children Act
By passing Public Law 94-142, Congress intended that all handicapped children would “have a right to
education, and to establish a process by which State and local educational agencies may be held accountable for accountable
providing educational services for all handicapped children.” This provided federal funding to states that agree to educate eligible students with disabilities, established rights of students (FAPE/LRE), developed IEP and established procedural safeguards. -
Education of the Handicapped Amendments
This amendment created incentives to educate infants using early intervention strategies, required IFSPs for eligible children and their families and extended the EAHCA’s Part B programs to 3- to 5-year-olds in participating states. -
Public Law 101-476 / Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Renamed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act; changed to "people first" language, added traumatic brain injury and autism, and added transition requirements for students 16 and older. Amendments would be added in 1997 and 2004 would further increase protections for students with disabilities under federal law; including disciplinary provisions, IEP content, mediation and due process.