-
Brown v. Board of Education
The primary focus of Brown v. Board was to dismantle racial segregation in public schools. On May 17, 1954, courts ruled that students of color were being deprived of the equal protection of the laws which is guaranteed to all U.S citizens under the 14th Amendment. -
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against individuals in public places. -
PARC v. the Commonwealth of PA
PARC v. the Commonwealth focused on providing children with intellectual or developmental disabilities access to quality public school education. In 1972 the court ruled that the state cannot deny children with intellectual disabilities access to public education. -
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972)
In the Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia (1972) case, the United States District Court ruled that students with disabilities are entitled to an education and cannot be denied based on the costs of the needed accommodations’. The Mills case was a class action lawsuit because seven children were denied public education. -
Armstrong v. Kline
The focal point of the Armstrong v. Kline case was the plaintiff wanted to provide children with severe disabilities with an extended school year due to the possibility of summer regression. In June of 1979, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court ultimately decided that the 180-day school year violated the plaintiff's rights under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. -
Irving Independent School v. Tatro
In the case between the Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, the school district refused to provide a student with Spina Bifida with clean intermittent catheterization services. On July 5, 1984, the US Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the Tatro family stating that the Texas School board had to provide the student with catheterization services while in school. -
Burlington School Committee v. Doe
On April 29, 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act parents could be reimbursed for enrolling their child in a private school if they didn't agree with the individualized education program (IEP) that was created by public school officials. -
Honig v. Doe
On January 20, 1988, the U.S Supreme ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that a California school board violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. The case was based on the fact that a California school district had indefinitely suspended a student for behaviors related to his disability. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
In 1989 the Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education case dealt with a six-year-old child with Down Syndrome. The parents of Daniel, whose developmental age at the time of the case was between two and three years old, wanted Daniel to learn in a mainstream classroom, but the school felt like his needs could not be accommodated in that learning environment. The courts ruled in favor of the school, stating that Daniel could not be educated satisfactorily in the
regular education classroom. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F
During the Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts to provide access to nursing services to disabled students throughout the school day. -
Sacramento v. Rachel H
In the Sacramento v. Rachel H case, an 11-year-old girl with intellectual disabilities was denied access to a general education classroom. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the family. -
No Child Left Behind (2001)
The No Child Left Behind U.S. federal law was implemented to improve the performance of public primary and secondary schools. The law was passed by Congress with bipartisan support. -
Larry P. v. Riles, Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA.
The Gaskin was a lawsuit where PA public school students with physical, behavioral, and developmental disabilities stated that the state violated IDEA.
The parties reached a settlement agreement which required school officials to give more consideration to placing students with IEPs in general education classrooms.