-
Brown v. Board of Education Topeka
This case focused on schools limiting and damaging opportunities for equal education by segregating African American students in the schools. The Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional and in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. -
Civil Rights Act of 1964
The case of Brown v. Board of Education 1954 sparked a movement which fueled advocacy for laws promoting equal rights. This law, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. It covered hiring, promotions, and firing in the workplace, as well as with regard to federal funding and in the schools, declaring such discrimination unconstitutional. (U. S. Dept of Labor, nd) ii -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 1965
This outcome of this act, signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, was that states would receive federal funding to provide increased educational opportunities for students with disabilities. -
PARC v. Commonwealth of PA 1972
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children named the state Board of Education, the Secretary of Education and 13 school districts in the suit stating that they were violating the equal rights outlined in the 14th Amendment of the constitution in not providing an equal education to special needs students. The suit ended in a consent decree, which stated that a free public education must be provided for all students ages 6 to 21. (Yell, p. 41-42, 2019) -
Mills v. Board of Education 1972
This suit stated that children were being excluding from school based on varying physical, cognitive, and behavioral disabilities without due process. The court ruled that exclusion from school was unconstitutional based on the equal rights clause of the 14th Amendment. Another outcome was the implementation of due process safeguards. (Yell, p. 42, 2019) -
The Rehabilitation Act-504 1973
The outcome of this law was to protect people with disabilities from discrimination allowing for accomodations when their mental or physical disability affects their ability to carry out every day lifeskills. According to Cornell law, it is considered to be the foundation for the Americans with Disabilties Act of 1990. (Cornell Law, 2020) -
The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act PL-94-142 1975
The intent of this law was to prevent the issue of students with disabilities continuing to be excluding and not receiving an education that was relevant to their needs. The outcome of this law was a free and public education for students aged 3 to 21 years, the implementation of the Individualized Education Program, known as the IEP, nondiscriminatory evaluation, testing, and placement, and due process. Additionally, it promised federal funding with state compliance. (Yell, 2019) -
Larry P. v. Riles 1979
This case focused on the amount of African American children being placed in special education classrooms based on low IQ scores, stating discrimination based on socio economic status. The outcome stated racial bias and halted IQ testing, as well as placed a monitor on the amount of African American children being placed in these classrooms. (Clearinghouse.net, Weltmen 2016) -
Armstrong v. Kline 1979
The focus in this case from the plaintiffs, was that their children with cognitive, physical, and emotional delays were being denied their public education rights beyond the 180 day rule, whereas some of the students aged out of services when school resumed. The outcome of this case was the birth of the Extended School Year program. where services are provided in the summer if deemed necessary by their IEP. (PA Dept of Edu 2023) -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley 1982
The focus in this case is that the student was not receiving a FAPE as required by the law, after provisions stated in her IEP for a sign language interpreter were not being met. The outcome in a higher court was that the child had been denied a FAPE and that the school district had ignored the definition of FAPE, requiring them to provide services. (Britannica, 2022) -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 1984
The focus of this court case was related services, specifically, the need for catheterization for a child during the school day, which the school argued could not be done. The Supreme Court ruled that this was necessary for her to attend school, and therefore, under the regulations of what is now IDEA, the school was to provide these services. This also included medical needs as related services to be provided. (Yell, 2019) -
Burlington School Committee v. DOE 1985
The focus of this case was tuition reimbursement. The parents of this child moved him to a private, state approved facility after having an outside evaluation having been unhappy with the child's progress in his public school placement. The outcome from the Supreme Court argued that the child was entitled to a FAPE, and acknowledged that tuition expenses should be covered. (Yell, p.304-305) -
EHA Amendment 1986
This law was essential in expanding services to infants and toddlers and providing them with an Individualized Family Service Plan, IFSP. It provided federal grants for the provision of services and training programs. (ERIC.ed.gov Oct) -
Honig v. Doe 1988
This case focused on the two students being expelled indefinitely for behaviors associated with their disability, therefore violating the stay-put provision of the EAHCA. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the families that the EAHCA had been violated and that the state is required to provide services when the school board does not. -
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education 1989
The case focused on Least Restrictive Environment. The outcome was that the schoold district was meeting the requirements. -
EHA Amendment 1990
This amendment changed the name of EHA to Individuals with Disabilities Act IDEA with the purpose of taking the emphasis off the label given by a disability and instead, focusing on the individual child. (Wikipedia 2022 -
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990
Similiar to the Civil Rights Act, this Act protects individuals from being discriminated against based on their disability an protects them in their daily routines. -
Board of Education Sacramento, CA vs Holland 1992
The focus of this case was family that wanted their child in a regular classroom around typical peers, whereas the school district wanted her day split between a regular education classroom and a special education classroom. The court ruled in favor of the family since the child showed progress in a regular classroom outside of the school that the family had placed her in. The school district was required to provide a similiar placement. ( Justia U.S. Law) -
Oberti v. Board of Education 1993
This case focused on meeting the needs of a boy in a regular kindergarten class with appropriate supports utilized as outlined in his IEP. However, after multiple moves and placements the school district still recommended that he be in a special education classroom full time. The court ultimately ruled in the child's favor and that he had initially been mainstreamed without proper implementation of supports such as behavior plans, an aide, and modfied curriculum plans. (Yell, p.274, 2019) -
EHA/IDEA Amendment 1997
The goal of this amendment was accountability for student's progress to provide a quality education for every student. (Yell, p. 47, 2019) -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. 1999
This case involved extensive medical treatment required for a paralyzed child to attend school. Parents initially covered the cost and had requested assistance from the school district. The school district claimed it was not required to provide a nurse. The outcome of this case was that having a nurse was a related service necessary for him to attend school. (Yell, p.161, 2019) -
No Child Left Behind Act 2001
This law was enacted to make schools accountable for education by providing measurable data on every student including those with disabilities to show progress. It included more involvement from the federal government. (Yell, p.47-48, 2019) -
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of PA 2004
This case focused on Pennsylvania's lack of compliance with IDEA, provisions for appropriate programming and specialized instruction, and mainstreaming students without appropriate supports. The outcome of this case included policies regarding IEP compliance, monitoring, data collection, and dispute resolution. This case was originally filed in 1994. (Public Interest Law Center -Gaskin) -
IDEA Amendments of 2004
Improvements in accountibility, explanation of highly qualified teacher status, and modifications to IEP objectives are included in this amendment. (Yell, p. 48-49, 2019) -
Endrew F. v. The Douglas County School District 2017
The focus of this suit involved the lack of progress and minimal change in IEP goals over the years for the child to benefit from the education as he did when briefly placed in a private autism program. The outcome ultimately was the school had an obligation, under IDEA, to show more than minimal progress and that IEP planning and goal writing should outline this progress from year to year. (Yell, p. 168-169)