-
Brown v. Board of Education
In this case, the Supreme court ruled that separate but equal is not equal. This was the end of segregation in schools. Black students were able to now go to the same schools as white students. -
Civil Rights Act
This landmark act prohibited discrimination in public places and ended segregation. The act called for the integration of public schools and other public places, white and black students were entitled to the same education. -
The Elementary and Secondary Act
This federal law provides funding for all K-12 public schools in the United States. It was put into place to ensure all children have equal access to education. -
Larry P v. Riles
Five African-American students had been placed in a class for EMR but they felt it was the wrong placement for these students. The IQ test that was used was racially biased and discriminatory. The Court ruled that IQ test should not be used on African-American children in regards to special education placement. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA
The U.S. District court of Pennsylvania ruled that children with mental retardation had the right to a free and appropriate education. This was the foundation for the later Education for All Handicapped Children Act passed in 1975. -
Mills v. Board of Education
Children were denied public education because they were "exceptional". The Court ruled that all children have a right to a free and appropriate education, their families should not be responsible for the cost. -
The Rehabilitation Act- 504
This law protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination. It is one of the first laws offering protection for people with disabilities. It states that organizations and employers cannot deny individuals with disabilities to equal opportunities. -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act PL 94-142
This law ensured that all children with disabilities had a right to FAPE. Schools had to evaluate a students needs, develop an IEP, include the child's parents and include the child with non disabled peers as much as possible. -
Armstrong v. Kline
In this case the court ruled that children with varying disabilities should be evaluated on whether or not they needed extended school year services. This means that if found eligible they would be provided with ESY services when school is not is session during summer months. -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley
This case questioned what does FAPE mean. The lower courts sided in favor of the student, arguing that Amy should be given an interpreter in an effort to reach her full academic potential. The Supreme Court later reversed this decision stating that she had been given a FAPE and schools should be able to determine what is required to meet a student with a disabilties needs. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
In this case it was questioned, what is considered a "related service" under the EHA. A student who needed CIC during school hours was not provided this service because the school district claimed is was a medical service and not a related service. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a related service needed for a student to be able to benefit from special education during school hours and was covered by EHA. -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE
The Supreme Court ruled that under the Education of the Handicapped Act that in some circumstances public schools may not be appropriate and unable to provided the adequate services that an IEP calls for. If this happens, like in this case, public school systems will need to pay for the expense of a private school. If parents on their own will place a students in private school setting then they will be responsible for the cost. -
EHA Amendment 1986
The EHA was amended to include rights and services for children with disabilities birth to age 3. -
Honiq v Doe
The "stay-put" policy of the Education of the Handicapped Act was used in this case. Public schools cannot suspend students without a return date them based on behaviors related to their disabilities. -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education
A six year old boy with Downs syndrome was placed in a special education class and parents disagreed because that wanted him to be included in the general education class with non disabled peers. The school district did not feel that it was the right setting for him because of the supports he needed. The court ruled that the school district did not violate EHA because the child was mainstreamed to the maximum amount possible. -
EHA Amendment 1990
This amendment changed EHA to IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. -
Americans with Disabilities Act
This civil rights law prohibits discrimination based on disabilities. Under ADA employers must also provide reasonable accommodations to employees and public places must also be accessible to individuals with disabilities. -
Board of Education in Sacramento, CA v. Holland
The school district placed Holland half time in special education classroom and half time in general education classroom. Her parents disagreed, wanting her to be in a general education class full time, and said under IDEA saying that it was her right to FAPE and she should be mainstreamed to the maximum extent appropriate. The court ruled in agreement with the parents, placing her in general education classroom full time with services to support her. -
Oberti v. Board of Education
A children with Down syndrome had been placed in a self contained special education classroom. His parents argued under IDEA he should be mainstreamed to the maximum extent possible and wanted him in a regular education classroom with supports. The court ruled in favor of the family stating that schools needed to give proper evidence of why students should be placed outside of general education classrooms. -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA
In this case, public schools in Pennsylvania were investigated to see if they had been following the process of inclusion under IDEA. It was found that children with disabilities did were not being educated with their peers to the maximum extent appropriate. The Court ruled that school districts needed more training in inclusion and how it is put into practice. -
EHA/IDEA Amendment 1997
In this amendment many changes were made. Some changes included were: transition planning to start at age 14, including regular educators on the IEP team, emphasizing measurable annual goals, assistive technology, mobility services for children with visual impairments, mediation services to be used by states, increase of assessment tools, and students with disabilities to be included in state testing. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F.
The student needed had physical needs to be taken care of during the school day such as a ventilator. The school district was refusing to pay for these services stating that they did not need to provide one to one care for this student. The Supreme Court ruled that under IDEA schools who receive federal funding need must provide necessary services to all students attending school. -
No Child Left Behind
This federal law held schools accountable for student achievement by improving students performance, focusing on disadvantaged students, and improving teacher quality. -
IDEA Amendment 2004
Changes to IDEA under this amendment included: new IEP forms, notices to parents when a child is identified, evaluated or placed in special education, comprehensive evaluations, periodic reports on goals, updating teacher and provider responsibilities, inclusive settings, and LRE. -
Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District
Endrew was a child with autism whose parents placed him in a private school when they felt his public school wasn't meeting his educational needs. His parents sued the school district for the private school cost stating that under IDEA it should be paid for. The Supreme Court ruled that when a child has an IEP they should be given the necessary supports to make progress not just get by year to year.