-
Brown v. Board of Education
Throughout the early fifties, many African Americans were segregated from whites in public school. African American students did not have the same rights and opportunities as white students. Oliver Brown's daughter was denied access to attend an all white school, so he filed a class action lawsuit. The case concluded that segregation in public schools was deemed unconstitutional, establishing a foundation for equal educational rights. -
Civil Rights Act
During the height of the Civil Rights Movement, many students were being segregated by their race and color. President John F Kennedy proposed the act to enforce equal access to public places and employment, and to desegregate schools. The act outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Focused on funding for schools with an emphasis on aiding underprivileged students. The Act Allocated funding for schools, emphasizing the upliftment of underprivileged students. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA
In 1970 a mentally disabled student who had not yet turned five years old was refused admittance into a public School. The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) intervened and sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania claiming that mentally disabled students were being denied federally funded education. The conclusion of the case affirmed the right to education for children with disabilities. -
Mills v. Board of Education
Over 12,000 disabled children from the District of Columbia D.C. were excluded from publicly funded education. Many students were suspended, expelled, or denied access to public schools. Several students brought forth the claim that the board denied them the right to public education without a due process. The outcome of the case concluded that D.C. schools could not exclude students with emotional, behavioral, physical, or mental disabilities. -
Rehabilitation Act-504
The act focused on protecting students with disabilities in schools, programs, and the workplace against discrimination. The 504 plan allows a multidisciplinary team to develop a plan to address specific needs and help eliminate barriers that may impede an individual's ability to complete specific functions. The act caused the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities in federally funded programs. -
The Education For All Handicapped Children's Act EAHCA (PL 94-142)
Prior to 1975, many students with disabilities were excluded from public school and did not receive educational services. The EAHCA provided federal funding for students with disabilities to attend public education in the least restricted environment. The EAHCA mandated schools to extend free and appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities. -
Armstrong v. Kline
Gary Armstrong and other students were denied a continuous educational program that exceeded the traditional 180 days. The plaintiffs argued that students with disabilities needed an extended school year to help with regression over the summer months. The case went back to trial and resulted in the entitlement to extended school year programs for qualifying students with disabilities. -
Larry P. v. Riles
in the 1970's, California had unfair IQ testing of African American students for placement in classes, resulting in many African American students to be categorized as mentally retarded. Larry P and other students took the matter to court after being wrongfully placed in special education classes due to low IQ scores. The case resulted in IQ tests being banned for African American students for special education purposes. -
Henrick Hudson School v. Rowley
A Kindergarten student with significant hearing loss was denied the continued use of an interpreter in the general education classroom. A due process hearing was requested to argue the level of educational benefit that schools must provide to children with disabilities. The court eventually ordered the school to provide the student with an interpreter. The case was a major factor in the future implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE
John Doe's parents were unhappy with the services of the IEP developed for their son who was disabled. Subsequently, the parents enrolled their child in a private school and sued the school district for tuition cost. The focus was centered around the reimbursement for parents placing children in private schools due to public schools' inability to cater to their needs. The Supreme Court ruled that the private school was the most appropriate education placement for the child according to IDEA. -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
Three year old Mary Tatro was denied the use of school personal to administer an intermittent catheterization (CIC) despite providing other services to her. Her parents took the district to court, claiming the district violated the EAHCA of 1975. The court ruled that the CIC was a related service, not a medical service. The school was held in violation of the Rehabilitation Act and was directed to provided CIC services to Mary during school hours. -
EHA Amendment
The Education for all Handicapped Children Act Amendments (EHA) focused on the expansion of services for younger children with disabilities. The amendments granted free and appropriate public education for children ages 0-5 and instituted services for early intervention programs. -
Honig v. Doe
John Doe, a disabled student, was suspended for physically attacking another student. The family filed a lawsuit claiming that the suspension violated Doe’s rights under the Education of the Handicapped Act. The focus of the case centered around the protection of the rights of children with disabilities concerning school discipline. The court ruled that disabled students' rights were reinforced, ensuring they couldn't be suspended or expelled without appropriate measures. -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education
Six year old Daniel was placed in an early childhood special education classroom after he failed to make progress in the general education classroom. The parents claimed that the school district failed to comply with the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). The case focused on inclusive education and the proper placement of children with disabilities. The results ended up siding with Daniel and mandated thorough deliberation before placement in specialized settings. -
EHA Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act
The act focused on the transition of EHA to IDEA and expansion of anti-discrimination to various domains beyond education. EHA transitioned to IDEA, and the ADA broadened the anti-discrimination stance beyond educational settings. -
Oberti v. Board of Education
Rafael, a student with Down Syndrome, was placed in a segregated special education setting after exhibiting behavior disruptions in his placement the year prior. The parents requested a due process hearing after the district refused their pleas to a regular education setting. The case focused on inclusive schooling for children with disabilities. After, schools were obligated to consider full inclusion for students with disabilities in regular classes before choosing more restrictive settings. -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland
The Sacramento City Unified School District place Rachael Holland in a special education setting despite her parents pleas to stay in a general education classroom, claiming it was beneficial for Rachael in special Ed. The focus was on the placement and least restrictive environment determinations for students with disabilities. The court provided a four-factor test to determine the appropriateness of placement in the regular education classroom, reinforcing the importance of mainstreaming. -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of students across Pennsylvania who were not getting appropriate services or accommodations according to the IEP. The case focused on the assurance of proper and meaningful inclusion in regular education classrooms for students with disabilities. After eleven years the case was settled, and Pennsylvania was required to provide training to educators on inclusion and ensure students with disabilities had access to regular education classrooms. -
EHA/IDEA Amendment
The amendment focused on strengthening the role of parents in educational decisions and emphasizing least restrictive environments (LRE's) for children with disabilities. It also gave districts more flexibility for disciplining students with disabilities who present misbehaviors. The outcome enhanced parents' involvement and emphasized least restrictive environment in educational placements. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F
After a quadriplegic student was denied school funded nursing services, the case was take to the Supreme Court to determine the services public schools are required to provide under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court held that continuous nursing services for a student with health needs are a 'related service' under IDEA, which means schools must provide these services at no cost to the student's family. -
No Child Left Behind
NCLB was instituted to ensure that students have "high quality" teachers that could increase the proficiency gaps in reading and math. NCLB focused on accountability in education, aiming to improve performance outcomes for all students. Teachers and schools who failed to meet their yearly goals would now be subject to sanctions. NCLB envisioned better outcomes for all students through rigorous accountability measures. -
IDEA Amendment
The 2004 amendment focused on the Integration of IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), emphasizing interventions in special education that are evidence-based. It ensured Individualized Education Plans (IEP) were created and implemented by a highly qualified team that included all facets of a student's specific needs and services. -
Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District
Te case focused on the standard of educational benefits provided to children with disabilities. The outcome clarified that schools must offer more than minimal progress for students with disabilities, but instead an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.