-
Brown v Board of Education
The Brown versus the Board of Education concerned racial desgregation in public schools.The connection between the inclusion of children with disabilities and African American children was the court's consideration that school segregation of any kind was not just. -
PARC v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The case of PARC, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens, versus the Commonwealt of Pennsylvania, was a case to provide children with intellectual disabilities access to public education, because prior to the case, ere was no legal mandate to provide such. On this day, it was ruled that it was unconsitutional to deny or postpone any child with developmental disabilities who is of age. -
Mills v Board of Edcation of District of Columbia
Schools of District of Columbia were not providing publicly sipported education or training to children with disabilities. After many trials that were not completed by the dates asked, the court finally mandated that all children that are residents of the District of Columbia are entitled to free admision and tuition to the Public Schools. -
Section 504 of the Rehailitation Act of 1973
This case required all agencies that accepted federal funding to provide equal opportnities to people with disabilities. -
Public Law 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHC) of 1975 was to make sure that public schools can no longer turn children with disabilties away. The impact was huge! People nationwide were thrilled! -
Board of Education of Hendrick Huson Central School District, Weschester Co, New York v Amy Rowley
Amy Rowley was a student that was deaf and expected to read lips in the classroom. Before school began for Amy, the school met with her parents and she was expected to read lips at school, or go to the School for the Deaf. Amy's Parents found it important for her to attend school. Her parent exercised their right under the EHC and requested an interpreter. The District Court ruled that "free and appropriate education" under EHC provides for the "basic floor for opportunity". -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990
In 1990, EHC was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This new title represented the importance of first-person language and the innappropriateness of the ter "handicapped". -
Americans with Disabilties Act of 1990
The passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 added to the discussion of what makes services "good enough". ADA gave "civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion." -
Oberti v the Board of Education
In August of 1992, the court ruled that the school district of Clementon violated IDEA because they failed to make reasonable efforts to include Raphael Oberti in general education classes with aids. -
IDEA Amendments of 1997
A provision was added regarding behavior infractions. If a student with a disability engagesin unacceptable or dangerous behavior,it must be determined whether the behavior is a manifestation of the student's disability. Other provisions: regular educators joined IEP teams, IEPs must involve progress in general education, etc. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v Garret F
While the court maintained that it was expensive and the district may have legitimate financial concerns, it ruled that Garret F's services fell under the heading of related services and must be provided for him. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, EHC revised
The IDEA act was given an addition that allowed an option for districts to use a response to intervention (RTI) model for determining if a student has a learning disability, rather than a descrepency model.
