-
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education
In this case, Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas because his daughter was denied entrance to Topeka’s all-white elementary schools.
The Supreme Court ruled that state-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This ruling would set the precedent for future special education cases that were also argued to violate the 14th amendment. -
Civil Rights Act
This act prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal. The federal civil rights laws have helped bring about profound changes in American education and improved the educational opportunities of millions of students. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
This program allocated federal funding for primary and secondary school education, established a national curriculum, and provided a mechanism to hold schools accountable to increase equality in education nationally. It also provided financial assistance to schools servicing a high percentage of students from low-income families. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
In this case, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens sued the state over a law that gave public schools the authority to deny a free education to children who had reached the age of 8, but had not reached the mental age of 5.
This case resulted in a consent decree in which the state agreed to provide a free public education for children with mental retardation from ages 6-21. That decree and many of the procedural protections in it became the basis for EHA. -
Mills v. Board of Education
Mills was brought on behalf of seven children and other similar students who resided in the District of Columbia. The students had behavioral problems or were mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and/or hyperactive. These students were excluded from school or denied educational services to their benefit.
The court ruled in favor of the students. This case established that "all children are entitled to free public education and training appropriate to their learning capacities." -
The Rehabilitation Act- Section 504
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act created and extended civil rights to people with disabilities in programs that receive federal funding. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability. -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142)
Guaranteed a free appropriate public education to each child with a disability including an educational plan with parental input, administrative procedures to dispute decisions, a provision that disabled students should be placed in the least restrictive environment, and a due process clause that guarantees an impartial hearing to resolve conflicts between the parents of disabled children to the school system. -
Armstrong v. Kline
In this case, five handicapped children and their parents brought forth three class action lawsuits by alleging that the children's constitutional and statutory rights were violated by denying them a free publicly funded education in excess of 180 days
The court agreed and found that a school year of only 180 days violated a child's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically in reference to children with severe and profound impairments or severe emotional disturbances. -
Larry P. v Riles
The initial complaint was filed on behalf of six African-American elementary children in the San Francisco Unified School District. The complaint contended that the use of standardized intelligence tests for placement of black children in E.M.R. classes in San Francisco was unconstitutional.
The court agreed and found that IQ tests could not be used as a sole indicator of placement. In addition, this case affirmed the importance of using multiple tools to assess a child's needs. -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley
Amy Rowley was a deaf student whose New York school district refused to provide a sign language interpreter at the request of her parents. Amy's parents filed a suit stating that the district was in violation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the district stating that FAPE requires schools to provide access to education and student growth, but they are not required to demonstrate that they have maximized each student's progress. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
This case involved Amber Tatro, a student with spina bifida. The disease caused Tatro to have a bladder condition that required her to be catheterized every several hours. The procedure was relatively simple and could be taught to a layperson in under an hour. Her school refused to provide this service.
The Supreme Court ruled that catheterization qualified as a related service for a student to receive FAPE. It was the first attempt to define school supportive health and medical services. -
Burlington School Committee vs DOE
This case involved a first grade student named Michael Panico. After a few years, the public school he was attending “was not equipped to handle his needs." Panico’s parents, at their own expense, enrolled him in a private special-education school while seeking review of his IEP. His parents sought reimbursement.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of his parents finding that parents have a right to reimbursement for private school tuition if the public education does not provide FAPE. -
Education for All Handicapped Children Act Amendment
EHA was amended to create the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program in order to to provide educational services to children from birth through age 2 with developmental delays or disabilities. -
Honig v. Doe
This case involved two special education students in California. Both students were suspended from school until completion of hearing proceedings. It was argued that a more than 5 day suspension for students with disabilities, when their behavior was disability-related, was in violation of EHA.
This case established new disciplinary requirements for schools when dealing with students with disabilities. The court established the 10 day rule which requires a manifestation determination meeting. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
Daniel was a six year old boy whose parents requested he be included in a Pre-K classroom part-day. Initially the district allowed the inclusion, but then changed the placement based on lack of student progress.
In this case, the court ruled that the mainstream classroom is not always the LRE if the student is not benefiting from the placement. It was also determined that students with disabilities have a right to be included in both academic and extracurricular programs of general education. -
Education for All Handicapped Children's Act Amendment/Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
This amendment renamed the legislation as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and added traumatic brain injury (TBI) and autism to the category of disabilities. Another change is that an individual transition plan needed to be created for each student no later than age 16. -
Oberti v. Board of Education
Rafael was an eight year old child with Down’s syndrome from New Jersey. The school district sought to place Rafael in a segregated special education classroom located in another school district. His parents objected to this placement.
The court agreed with Rafael's parents and concluded that schools were required to make satisfactory efforts to mainstream disabled students or be able to explain why they are not able to do so. A two part test was developed to determine if schools had met LRE. -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland
Rachel Holland was an 11 year old student with an Intellectual Disability. Her parents sought to increase the time Rachel spent in the regular education classroom. District officials argued that Rachel should be placed for only half the day in a regular classroom, and half the day in a special-education class.
The courts sided with the Hollands and a full-inclusion placement for Rachel. A four factor system was adopted for determining appropriate placements for students with disabilities. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment
Included changes on discipline for students with disabilities, required IEPs to state how the student with disabilities will be involved with the general education curriculum, transition planning begins at age 14, regular educators became part of the IEP team, benchmarks and measurable annual goals were emphasized, and students with disabilities are included in statewide and district wide assessment programs or given alternative assessments that meet their unique needs. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District vs Garrett F.
Garret was a student with a severed spinal cord. His family used their own funds and resources to employ a nurse at school. When the family asked for financial support from the school district for the health care services that Garret required in the school day, the request was denied.
This case once again brought up the provision of health services in school. The court ruled that the district had to provide and fund the 1 to 1 nurse, as it was not a "medical service" and provided access to FAPE. -
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind Act aimed to ensure that all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, would have the opportunity for a solid education. It mandated that all teachers be "highly qualified" and held schools accountable for how kids learned and achieved. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment
This amendment increased the focus on accountability and improved outcomes by emphasizing reading, early intervention, and research-based instruction by requiring that special education teachers be highly qualified. -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA
Gaskin was a lawsuit on behalf of PA public school students with physical, behavioral and developmental disabilities. The plaintiffs were 12 students from various school districts in PA and 11 advocacy groups. Plaintiffs claimed that the state violated IDEA.
A settlement agreement was reached between the parties. The agreement requires IEP teams to give serious consideration to integrating IEP students into the regular classrooms (LRE) with supplemental aids and services. -
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
This Act replaced the 2001 No Child Left Behind Legislation. ESSA rolls back many of the federal requirements of NCLB and gives power back to the states. States are required to create accountability plans, set goals, and use accountability systems for student learning and achievement. -
Endrew F. v. the Douglas County School District
Endrew was an Autistic student with behavioral problems. His parents withdrew him from public school and claimed the school was not providing FAPE. The district argued that he was making some progress as was required by the law.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Endrew. They found that an IEP for a special education student must be calculated “to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances" and provide special education students with more than "de minimus" progress.
