085d2893 3028 49e2 9210 f2346b710371

History of Special Education Law Timeline

  • Brown v. Board of Education

    Brown v. Board of Education
    In 1954, plaintiff Oliver Brown brought a case to the Supreme Court to argue against "separate but equal," stating segregation unschools is a violation of students' rights. The court voted in favor of the plaintiffs, ending racial segregation in schools.
  • Civil Rights Act

    Civil Rights Act
    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racial segregation in the United States. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This Act ended the Jim Crow laws and is one of the most significant laws passed in the history of the United States of America and was a huge step towards racial equality.
  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

    The Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    Signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the ESEA is a statute that funds both primary and secondary education as a means to aid low-income students and fight against racial segregation in schools. This act is the predecessor to the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.
  • Larry P. v. Riles

    Larry P. v. Riles
    This case was filed by the families of five African American students who were improperly placed in special education classrooms based on intelligence tests that were racially biased and discriminatory. The court ruled in favor of the students and the San Francisco Unified School District was banned from using IQ tests as sole qualifier to identify students for special education classes.
  • PARC v. Commonwealth of PA

    PARC v. Commonwealth of PA
    Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) brought a class action suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, claiming students with disabilities were not receiving a fair education based on the equal protection laws of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled in favor of PARC, saying the state could not deny an individual's right to equal access to education "based on an intellectual or developmental disability status."
  • Mills v. Board of Education

    Mills v. Board of Education
    This historic case ruled that all students have the right to receive a free public education and student with disabilities do not have to cover costs of their education. Seven plaintiffs, all students with disabilities, brought forth this case against the District of Columbia, claiming they had been denied an education because of their disabilities. The judge ruled that public education, as well as necessary accommodations, be paid for by the school district, regardless of the price.
  • The Rehabilitation Act

    The Rehabilitation Act
    Also known as the 504 Act, the Rehabilitation Act was the first act to address disability rights in the United States. This act prohibits employers and organizations from excluding individuals based on disability. All citizens have the right to an equal opportunity and cannot be fired or prevented from working due to disability.
  • The Education for All handicapped Children's Act

    The Education for All handicapped Children's Act
    Before the EHA was put into place, only 1 in 5 students with disabilities was educated in U.S. public schools. This law was the first free standing special education law, which mandated that all students with disabilities be educated in public schools and have the right to special education classes and services.
  • Armstrong v. Kline

    Armstrong v. Kline
    Parents of students with disabilities filled a case against Caryl Kline, the chief official of the Pennsylvania Department of Education, stating the 180 day school year deprives students with disabilities access to education, as they regress during the summer months. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, thus creating Extended School Year (ESY) programs that are free and available to qualifying students.
  • Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley

    Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley
    This case was the first interpretation case of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) in which a deaf student, A. Rowley, was denied a sign language interpreter by her New York school district. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating school districts do not need to provide interpreters to students who are receiving an equal education.
  • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

    Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, a student with spina bifida, stating that the Texas school district must provide catheterization services during the school day, under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This is an important case as it begins progress in defining a distinction between “school health services” and “medical services.”
  • Burlington School Committee v. DOE

    Burlington School Committee v. DOE
    This is an important precedent setting case between the parents of a student with disabilities and a Burlington MA school district. The Supreme Court ruled that parents can be reimbursed for tuition after sending their student to a private school, as the public school district designed an individualized education plan (IEP) that the parents disagreed with. This case is important in giving parents a voice in IEP meetings.
  • EHA Amendment

    EHA Amendment
    This amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act addressed early intervention services, mandating that states must provide services to families of children with disabilities from the time they are born. Up until this point, these services did not start until the child was three.
  • Honig v. Doe

    Honig v. Doe
    This case was taken to the Supreme Court after the San Francisco Unified School District indefinitely suspended as student with disabilities for violent and disruptive behavior related to his diagnosis. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student, citing his rights under EAHCA had been violated.
  • Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education

    Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
    The plaintiff, a kindergartener with Down Syndrome, was placed in full day special education classroom, which his parents felt violated his right to a least restrictive environment. The court ruled in favor of the school district, stating that the least restrictive environment was not a regular education classroom.
  • EHA Amendment/IDEA

    EHA Amendment/IDEA
    This reauthorization saw EHA's title change to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Traumatic brain injury and Autism were added as disability categories. Sections handling a students transition plan after graduation were added to IEPs.
  • Americans with Disabilities Act

    Americans with Disabilities Act
    This act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, specifically in employment, education, including higher education, transportation, and access to government programs and services.
  • Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland

    Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland
    This case was brought forth by the plaintiff R. Holland's parents after their request to have her included in full day regular education classes was denied. The district court concluded that the most appropriate placement for Holland was in a full-time regular education classroom with some supplemental services.
  • Oberti v. Board of Education

    Oberti v. Board of Education
    Oberti, a student with Down Syndrome, was removed from a regular education class and placed in a segregated special education classroom. The school failed to develop a behavior plan before removing the student. The federal court ruled in favor of Oberti, saying the Clementon school district did not do enough, or provide sufficient support, to make Oberti’s time in the regular classroom work.
  • Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA

    Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA
    The family of Lydia Gaskin brought this case against her school district, alleging she and other students with disabilities had been

    denied their federal statutory right to a free appropriate public education in regular classrooms with necessary supplemental aids and services. After 11 years a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the school district, which was ordered to pay compensatory damages.
  • EHA Amendment

    EHA Amendment
    This amendment emphasized the importance of access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. This law also set up supports for parents, such as mediation, to settle disputes between schools and local educational agencies.
  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F

    Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F
    This Supreme Court case relied on the precedent set by Irving Independent School Dist. v. Tatro and ruled that public schools must fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" after student Garrett F, was unable to attend school without medical care of a ventilator and wheelchair. The school district declined to take on financial responsibility so Garrett's parents sued, taking the case up the ladder to the Supreme Court which ruled in their favor.
  • No Child Left Behind

    No Child Left Behind
    The No Child Left Behind Act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Its aim was to improve education at the primary and secondary levels through increased accountability for school districts and states in hopes to raise overall student performance.
  • IDEA Amendment

    IDEA Amendment
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was reauthorized in 2004 and outlined evaluation tools that were scientific research-based intervention strategies used for identifying students who needed special education services.
  • Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District

    Endrew, F v. the Douglas County School District
    Student F. Endrew was removed from public school and placed in a special school for Autistic children. His parents requested reimbursement from the Douglas County School District, which had not provided appropriate support for the student under IDEA. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying "public school students with disabilities are entitled to greater benefits than some lower courts had determined."