-
1 CE
Introductory Paragraph
In 1862, Massachusetts passed compulsory attendance which requires all students ages 6-18 to attend school. By 1918 there was compulsory attendance in all states. This attendance law helped guarantee that special needs students were able to go to school and led to parents advocating for their children to go to school.
Brown V. Board of Education allowed for the desegregation of schools and provided a basis for advocacy groups to argue that students with disabilities had the same rights. -
Burlington School Committee v DOE
A child was placed in one school, but both her parents and doctor's did not feel that this was the best and appropriate placement for them because the school could not meet the child's needs. The parents enrolled the child in another school and asked that the district pay for it and the district declined. The court ordered that the town pay for the students' tuition and transportation. -
Brown v Board of Education
Schools were segregated based on a persons race.
The court ruled that segregation based on race was prohibited in public schools. -
Civil Rights Act
People in the United States were being discriminated against. The court ruled that discrimination in the United States based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin was illegal and outlawed. -
The Elementary and Secondary Act
The act provides federal funding to primary and secondary education, with funds authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement promotion. The act emphasizes equal access to education, aiming to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing federal funding to support schools with children from impoverished families. -
Larry P. v Riles
IQ tests were used to place African American students in special education. The court ruled that IQ tests are forbidden to use in placement of special education students. -
PARC v Commonwealth of PA
Children were denied an education because they were not mentally 5 years old. The court ruled that this was unconstitutional and ordered the state to evaluate and place all students with mental disabilities ages 6-21 in a publicly funded educational setting. -
Mills v Board of Education
Children that presented varying disabilities were improperly excluded from school without due process. The court ruled that the total exclusion of students with disabilities was unconstitutional since segregation in public education based on race was unconstitutional. -
The Rehabilitation Act-504
Section 504 of the Rehab Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities by any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or by any program or activity conducted by a federal executive agency or the U.S. Postal Service. -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142)
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) guaranteed free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to school-aged children with disabilities. The law also required schools to:
evaluate a child's needs, develop an individualized education program (IEP) for each child, involve the child's parents, and educate the child with non-disabled children as much as possible. -
Armstrong v. Kline
Children were being denied free and public education in excess of the 180 day school year. The courts found that there was a proven need for education in excess of 180 days. -
Hendrick Hudson School v Rowley
A deaf child was denied a sign language interpreter asked for by parents because the school felt it was not necessary. The court ruled that free and appropriate education was not being given to the student. -
Irving Independent SD v Tatro
A child with cerebral palsy needed intermittent catheterization in order to attend school for a few hours daily. The school denied this as they felt providing this service was not part of their educational responsibility. -
Burlington School Committee v DOE
A child was placed in one school, but the parents and doctors did not feel that the school could meet the child’s needs, so they enrolled him in a different school and asked that they pay for the tuition. The court ruled that the town pay for the students' tuition and transportation. -
EHA Amendment
EHA was amended to create the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program to provide educational services to children from birth through age 2 with developmental delays or disabilities. -
Honig v Doe
An emotionally disturbed child was indefinitely suspended for their violent and disruptive behavior. The court ruled that the school board violated the law by suspending the student for longer than 10 school days. -
Danny R.R. v State Board of Education
A disabled student was denied placement in a classroom with non disabled peers. The Court found that schools must place the student in a learning environment where they interact with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible. -
Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in several areas, including employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications and access to state and local government’ programs and services. -
Oberti v Board of Education
Parents wanted their child with Down Syndrome to be placed in a regular classroom with necessary supports. The school district determined that the child be placed in a self-contained special education classroom due to their disruptive behaviors. The court ruled that if placement outside the classroom is necessary, the school district must then include the child in as many school programs with children who do not have disabilities “to the maximum extent appropriate.” -
EHA Amendment 1990
The 1990 Amendments (Public Law 101-476) renamed the legislation as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and added traumatic brain injury (TBI) and autism to the category of disabilities. -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v Holland
Parents requested that their child be placed in a regular ed classroom for the 89-90 school year and were denied. The court affirmed the decision that she be placed in a regular ed classroom. -
Gaskin v Commonwealth of PA
School-age students with disabilities in Pennsylvania had been denied a free appropriate education in regular education classrooms with individual supportive services, and had been placed in regular education classrooms without the supportive services, individualized instruction, and accommodations they need to succeed in the regular education classroom. The court ruled that students should be in least restrictive environment with supplementary aids and services. -
EHA/IDEA Amendment
IDEA was amended to provide a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities from preschool through high school. -
Cedar Rapids Community SD v Garrett F.
A student required a wheelchair, was dependent on a ventilator and needed assistance attending to his physical needs throughout the day. The school district believed they were not legally obligated to do that. The court ruled that those services be provided by the district. -
No Child Left Behind
This changed the federal government's role in kindergarten through grade twelve education by requiring schools to demonstrate their success in terms of the academic achievement of every student -
IDEA Amendment
IDEA 2004 requires forms for the Individualized Education Program (IEP), notice of procedural safeguards (explaining parental rights under Part B of IDEA), and prior written notice (when a school district proposes or refuses to take action regarding the educational program of a child with a disability). -
Endrew F. v Douglas County SD
A child was given an IEP that the parents denied because they did not feel it allowed any forward growth. The parents went to court to determine whether an IEP is sufficient to enable a student with a disability to make appropriate progress in light of his or her circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Endrew and now a higher standard is required for developing IEPs.