History of Special Education Law

By akerns
  • 1954: Brown v. Board of Education

    1954: Brown v. Board of Education
    Primary Focus: Racial segregation in public schools.
    Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, setting a standard for the broader concept of equality in education.
  • 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964

    1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Primary Focus: Prohibition of discrimination of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
    Outcome: Established the groundwork for civil rights protections, which would extend to individuals with disabilities in later legislation.
  • 1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

    1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Primary Focus: Federal funding for primary and secondary education, especially focusing on disadvantaged schools.
    Outcome: Provided additional support and resources to schools, impacting special education by addressing educational inequalities and the need for focus on special education.
  • 1971: PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    1971: PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
    Primary Focus: Right to education for children with intellectual disabilities.
    Outcome: The court ruled that children with intellectual disabilities must be provided with a free public education, leading to changes in educational policy and practices.
  • 1972: Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia

    Primary Focus: Education for children with disabilities.
    Outcome: The court ruled that all children, regardless of disability, have the right to a public education and that the District of Columbia had to provide appropriate educational services.
  • 1973: Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)

    1973: Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)
    Primary Focus: Banning of discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
    Outcome: Ensured that people with disabilities were given equal opportunities in education and other areas.
  • 1975: Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142)

    1975: Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142)
    Primary Focus: Ensuring a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities.
    Outcome: Mandated that public schools provide special education and related services to children with disabilities, providing the framework for special education services.
  • 1982: Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

    1982: Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
    Primary Focus: Definition of "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE).
    Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that FAPE requires educational benefits that are sufficiently ambitious.
  • 1986: EHA Amendment

    Primary Focus: Expanded services to include early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
    Outcome: Provided services to children from birth to age 5, promoting early identification and intervention.
  • 1988: Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

    1988: Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
    Primary Focus: Health-related services in schools.
    Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that schools must provide necessary medical services to students with disabilities if those services are required for the student to benefit from their education.
  • 1989: Larry P. v. Riles

    1989: Larry P. v. Riles
    Primary Focus: Discriminatory practices in the use of IQ tests for placing African-American students in special education.
    Outcome: The court found that using culturally biased IQ tests violated students' rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
  • 1990: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

    1990: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
    Primary Focus: Banning of discrimination based on disability in various aspects of public life, including education.
    Outcome: Extended anti-discrimination protections to private schools and other public entities, complementing IDEA.
  • 1990: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

    1990: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
    Primary Focus: Reauthorization and expansion of PL 94-142; renamed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to IDEA.
    Outcome: Requires all schools and districts receiving federal dollars to provide students with disabilities a public education designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.
  • 1994: Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    Primary Focus: Inclusion and access to regular education environments.
    Outcome: The court mandated that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment and have access to regular education settings when possible.
  • 1997: IDEA Amendments

    Primary Focus: Participation in regular education classrooms, and increased emphasis on accountability.
    Outcome: Focused on educational standards and the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings.
  • 2001: No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

    2001: No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
    Primary Focus: Accountability and standardized testing for all students, including those with disabilities.
    Outcome: Increased accountability measures for schools and required that students with disabilities be included in state assessments.
  • 2004: IDEA Amendments

    Primary Focus: Reauthorization of IDEA with additional emphasis on accountability, teacher qualifications, and early intervention.
    Outcome: Improved procedures for assessing student progress and provided better support for teachers and early intervention services.
  • 2017: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

    2017: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
    Primary Focus: required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances
    Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that an educational program must be “appropriately ambitious” in light of the child’s circumstances, affirming a higher standard for educational benefit