History of Special Education & Inclusive Education

  • Brown vs Board of Education

    Brown vs Board of Education
    Brown vs Board of Education was a big case in the states. This case ruled there would be no more segregation of public schools and was a violation of the 14th amendment and unconstitutional. This case over turned the far reaching decision of Plessy V. Ferguson.
  • Department of Public Welfare v Haas

    Department of Public Welfare v Haas
    The Department of Public Welfare v Haas case determined that the state of Illinois did not have to provide free public education to students with disabilities. It says that they were considered "feebleminded". It started because a parent of a child with an intellectual disability and the parent argued for the right to his son have free education.
  • Elem & Sec Edu Act

    Elem & Sec Edu Act
    The Elementary & Secondary act is a long term decision for all students to have equal opportunities. It addresses how difficult the children were affected having to live with disability and other problems. This act made sure everyone has a fair chance.
    [SocialWelfare]https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-and-secondary-education-act-of-1965/#:~:text=The%20Elementary%20and%20Secondary%20Education,education%20(Jeffrey%2C%201978).
  • Parc vs Commonwealth of Penn

    Parc vs Commonwealth of Penn
    In Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the court ruled that the state can not deny an individuals right to equal access to education based on disability status. It was used to secure a quality education for all children. It made sure all children 6-21 be in a properly funded educational program.
  • Mills vs Board of Education of District of Columbia

    Mills vs Board of Education of District of Columbia
    The Mills vs Board of Education of District of Columbia ruled the responsibility of states and localities to educate children with disabilities. Mills was the one saying that no child could be denied a public education because of disabilities.
  • The EHA

    The EHA
    The education for fall handicapped children act promised a free appropriate public education to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country. President Gerald Ford signed the act into the law. It required all public schools that get federal funds to provide equal access to education as well as one free meal a day.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7At3eJRVQM&t=11s
  • Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School vs Rowley

    Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School vs Rowley
    Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School vs Rowley is a supreme court case that was concerned about the interpretation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Rowley was a deaf student and the school she attended refused to provide a sign language interpreter. It was the first case to suggest there was a limit being put on resources that are needed for kids with disabilities.
  • Honig v Doe

    Honig v Doe
    The Honig v Doe case will help distinguish the proper role of educators in the suspension and expulsion of handicapped students. It helped them understand what protocols to take in the specific situation. In conclusion they prohibited state or local school authorities from excluding disabled children from the classroom for any reason.
  • Cedar Rapids v Garret F

    Cedar Rapids v Garret F
    The Cedar Rapids v Garret F case requires school boards to provide continuous nursing service to disabled students who need them during the day. It was a 7-2 decision that if the services that are going to be given must be related to keeping the child with disabilities in school and able to access educational opportunities.
  • Winkelman vs Parma City School District

    Winkelman vs Parma City School District
    Jacob Winkelman was a six year old autistic child from Parma. The issue was wether parents could represent the interests of their special needs child in court without being represented by an attorney. The decision ended up being that non lawyer parents cannot represent themselves because the rights protect the child and not the parents.