-
First State Passes Compulsory Education Law
Massachusetts was the first state to pass a compulsory education law in 1852. Vermont passed the second in 1867, with other states following suit. -
Watson v. City of Cambridge
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a child who was “weak in mind” and could not benefit from instruction, was troublesome to other children, made “unusual noises,” and was unable to take “ordinary, decent, physical care of himself” could be expelled from public school despite compulsory education laws. -
First State Laws Requiring Public Schools to Educate Students with Disabilities
A few states began to adopt laws requiring public schools to educate students with disabilities. The first states passing such laws were New Jersey in 1911, New York in 1917, and Massachusetts in 1920. However, enforcement of these laws was ineffective. -
Compulsory Education Laws in All States
By 1918, compulsory education laws were in place in all states. Despite the enactment of compulsory education, children with disabilities were often excluded from public schools. -
Beattie v. Board of Education
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that school officials could exclude a student with disabilities, even though that student had attended public school until the fifth grade. School officials claimed the student's condition nauseated the teachers and other students, required too much teacher time, and negatively affected school discipline and progress. School officials expelled the student from school and suggested he attend a day school for students who were deaf. -
Creation of Advocacy Groups
Advocacy groups were established throughout the nation during the 1930s and 1940s. The advocacy movement was critical to the development of special education services. The activities of interest groups were critical in terms of providing information, stimulus, and support to Congress when considering, developing, and acting on legislation. -
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals - Compulsory Education Law
The Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that the state statute mandating compulsory attendance for children ages 6 through 18 gave the State Department of Education the authority to exclude certain students. This ruling was indicative of the contradiction between compulsory attendance and the exclusion of students with disabilities. -
Brown v. Board of Education
The Court maintained that state-required or state-sanctioned segregation solely on the basis of a person’s unalterable characteristics (race or disability) was unconstitutional. This became a catalyst for the efforts to ensure educational rights for children and youth with disabilities. -
Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act
Congress appropriated funds to train teachers of children with mental retardation. -
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the state’s existing compulsory attendance legislation did not require the state to provide a free public education for the “feeble minded” or to children who were “mentally deficient” and who, because of their limited intelligence, were unable to reap the benefits of a good education. -
Training of Professional Personnel Act
Helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation. In these laws, Congress appropriated funds to encourage the development of education for students with disabilities. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
The purpose of the ESEA was to provide federal money to states to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, including students with disabilities who attended state schools for the deaf, blind, and retarded. The following year an amendment to this act, Title VI of the ESEA, added funding to develop promising programs for children with disabilities. -
The Education of the Handicapped Act
The EHA provided funding to states and institutions of higher education for the continued development of programs for students with disabilities. The EHA was a very important step because it (a) was the first freestanding special education law, (b) mandated that students with disabilities be educated, and (c) required that students with disabilities should receive the special education and related services they needed to progress. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Required that the State of Pennsylvania provide students with mental retardation a free appropriate public education. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
This case held that because segregation in public schools by race was illegal, it would be unconstitutional for the D.C. Board of Education to deprive students with disabilities from receiving an education. -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504, a short provision of this act, was the first federal civil rights law to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. The primary purpose of Section 504 was to prohibit discrimination against an individual with a disability by any agency receiving federal funds. -
The Education Amendments
Authorized the creation of the National Advisory Council on Handicapped Children. Outlined the right of students with disabilities to an education, created procedural safeguards, provided funds for programs for the education of students with disabilities, specified due process procedures, and addressed the issue of least restrictive environment. -
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
An educational bill of rights with the promise of federal financial incentives. Qualified students with disabilities have the right to (a) nondiscriminatory testing, evaluation, and placement procedures; (b) education in the least restrictive environment; (c) procedural due process, including parental involvement; (d) a free education; and (e) an appropriate education, as developed by a group of persons, including a student’s parents in an individualized education program (IEP). -
The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act
Allowed parents to recover attorney’s fees if they prevail in a due process hearing or court case -
The Education of the Handicapped Amendments
Early intervention for young children with developmental disabilities from birth to their third birthday. This law became a subchapter to IDEA. Required an Individualized Family Services Plan (IFSP) for eligible children and their families. -
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Renamed the EAHCA the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
