History of Special Education Law by Samantha West

By samwest987

  • Intro

    Compulsory attendance is the requirement for children ages 6-18 to attend school. Not including those in Special Ed. as they were seen as "mentally deficient" and "feeble minded". (Yell, 2018.) This lead families to advocate for their children. The civil rights movement impacted on the development of Special Education law through movements such as Brown v Board. This begun as a movement for Black citizens but later "affected many aspects of educational law." (Turnbull, Stowe, & Huerta, 2007)

  • Brown v. Board of Education

    In this monumental case, the ruling was that the segregation of children (based on race) in public schools was unconstitutional.
    This was not only a milestone for special education law, but the civil rights movement as a whole.

  • Civil Rights Act

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination. As well as discrimination based on religion and sex.

  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

    The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed in 1965 to improve educational opportunities for those with both physical and intellectual disabilities by providing federal funding.
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1966 following ESEA. This prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin.

  • PARC v. Commonwealth of PA

    This class action suit against the state of PA argued that students with intellectual disabilities were not receiving an education that suited their individual needs.
    This suit was resolved by requiring those with intellectual disabilities being provided with a free education (Yell, 2019).
    Mill v. Board of education followed shortly after.

  • Mills v. Board of Education

    Filed against the District of Columbia, this class-action suit mandated that the board of education provide an education to all children with disabilties. This was based on the 14th Amendment.
    As stated by Yell (2019), nearly 50 cases were filed following Mill v. Board on behalf of the education for children with disabilities (Zettel & Ballard, 1982).
    Procedural safeguards were put into place and set the precedent for The Education for All handicapped Children's Act.

  • The Rehabilitation Act-504

    What is known as Section 504, was proposed as an amendment (1972) to the civil rights act (Yell, 2019).
    The Rehabilitation Act Section 504 prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities from receiving education and funding.

  • The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142)

    Prior to EAHCA, children with disabilities did not receive an education that met their needs or excluded from schools altogether (Yell, 2004).
    EAHCA put funding/ free public education for special education into place in 1975.
    In 1978, this was expanded to students between ages 3-18. Then up to the age of 21 in 1980.

  • Armstrong v. Kline

    This case, also involving the state of Pennsylvania, was taken to court by families who felt limiting education to the 180 days that are in a typical school year violated their constitutional rights.
    This established the mandate (In the state) for Extended School Year programming for children with intellectual disabilities.
    (Armstrong v. Kline, 513 F. Supp. 425 (E.D. Pa. 1980))
    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/513/425/1613713/

  • Larry P. v. Riles

    25 years after Board v. Brown, African American children's educational rights were still being fought for.
    In this 1979 case, the state of California removed standardized testing for school placement as they were racially biased.

  • Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley

    When deaf student, Amy Rowley, began kindergarten her school disitrict (Hendrick Hudson Central School District) did not meet her needs; Going against the plan discussed by the school and Rowley's parents.
    Rowley did not have an IEP until the following school year. Her parents filed against the school district as they felt they were "not compiling with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act" (yell, 2019).
    Following this was what the supreme court calls the "Rowley Standard".

  • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

    In 1984 related services were fought for by a family of a student with a genetic defect, spina bifida. Aside from Special Education, Amber Tatro required catheterizing. The school district felt that this did not qualify under "Special Education".
    The Supreme Court sided with Tatro as her physical needs impacted her education (Yell, 2019).

  • Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education

    Michael Panico was a young boy whose intellectual and emotional disabilities impacted his ability to learn. Burlington offered placement and his father placed him in a facility. The school board was ordered to provide funding and reimbursements for the family's spending. Following this decision, more tuition reimbursements were taken to court (Yelll, 2019).

  • Education of the Handicapped Act Amendment

    following EAHCA (1975), Amendments were added to further to improve education services for handicapped children.
    According to Congress.gov, "this amendment requires handicapped infants/toddlers and their family receive an assessment of their needs and services to meet these needs. suc as well as a individualized plan developed by a team, including the parent or guardian.

  • Honig v. Doe

    After the San Fransisco Unified School District wanted two students expeled for being emotionally disturbed, their parents took the district to court. The allegation agaisnt the district was that they violated IDEA (Wooster).
    The court ruled in favor of the families and Califironia could not suspend or expel students for these disruptions.
    https://www.quimbee.com/cases/honig-v-doe#:~:text=The%20appeals%20court%20agreed%20with,disabled%20children%20for%20such%20misconduct.

  • Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education

    Kindergarten aged Daniel did not function at his age level and was therefore removed from his GenEd class and his parents filed against the school district in district court (874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989)
    Though this environment was not the most beneficial for Dan's learning, the ruling of this case established that disabled students also have opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers.

  • EHA Amendment & Americans with Disabilities Act

    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilties against discrimination (Yell, 2019). This focuses of employement. However, it impacts special education by expanding on Section 504.
    The ADA, and its defition of disability, were revisited in 2008 (Yell, 2019).

  • The Sacramento Unified School District v. Holland

    Like Daniel R.R., Rachel Holland was a student whose family fought for her to be in a class with her [typical] peers. Unlike Daniel, (According to the JUSTIA Law website), this accomodation was able to be made for Holland with the help of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The ditrict court ruled that this benefited the student.

  • Oberti v. Board of Education

    A case that unfourtantely Preceded the ADA being revised in 2008 was Oberti v. Board of Education. According to Yell, Rafael Oberti was placed in GenEd without support as his IEP did not provide behavioral plan.
    The dicta of this case required school districts to look at appropriate aids and services.

  • Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA

    Over 20 years after PARC v. Commonwealth of PA, there was another lawsuit filed against the Commonwealth of PA.
    In this 1994 lawsuit, the plantiff argued that students with disabilties had been placed in GenEd classrooms without the support and accommodations they need to succeed (Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse). https://clearinghouse.net/case/13239/

  • IDEA Amendment (1997)

    In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was amended.
    This provided a "Free appropriate public education" for disabled students from Pre-K-High School (WebAIM, 2021). https://webaim.org/articles/laws/usa/idea#:~:text=The%20Chafee%20Amendment-,What%20is%20the%20IDEA%3F,from%20preschool%20through%20high%20school.

  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F.

    Garrett F.'s disabity when beyond intellectual as he required a wheelchair and ventilator.
    IDEA orders financial assistance be provided for Special Ed and related services (§ 1401(a)(17)).
    Judge concluded that the IDEA required the District to bear financial responsibility for all of the disputed services, finding that most of them are already provided for some other students (Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999)).

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

    in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was George W. Bush's priority. This Act was put into place to increase the success of all students and to narrow the test score gap (Anthes, 2002; Education Commission of the States, 2002; Learning First Alliance, 2002).
    since that time has received numerous amendments (2006, 2008, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 (WebAIM, 2021).

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004

    The goal of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 was to align IDEA with ESEA (Yell 2019).
    Changes made to the law include early intervention services, funding, instruction and IEPs. After this, IEPs had a new development and modification process, documentation, and more.

  • Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District

    In 2017, Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District had a unanimoua ruling. In this ruling, the Supreme Court's new standard was that schools must offer IEPs that help students make progress and that appropriately aligns with their circumstances (Endrew, 2017, p. 14).