-
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that separate was not equal. What seems a simple ruling now was in 1954 game-changing. It was "the first time the federal government had advocated for students who experienced inequality and prejudice at school" (1). This ruling set the stage for government support of other oppressed groups, namely individuals with disabilities, later in history. -
PARC v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279
The PARC versus Pennsylvania case was the successor to the Brown v. Board ruling and a spiritual overturn of the 1958 Welfare versus Haas which ruled that the state was not required to provide free education to individuals with disabilities. This new ruling, however, stated that the state could not deny such education (2), and was the first step down a new path of legal justice. -
EAHCA (Education for All Handicapped Children Act), Public Law 94-142
The EAHCA was one of the first comprehensive federal laws concerned with education of individuals with disabilities. Now, at a federal level, states were required to provide "a free and appropriate public education for children with disabilities" (3). This public law would be colloquially known as the Mainstreaming Law. In addition to a movement toward mainstreaming, the EAHCA defined the ideas of IEPs and LRE, though more legislation would be required for effective implementation. -
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments, Public Law 99-457
These 1986 amendments expanded the age range of children who were provided care and service under federal law. Public Law 99-457 required that free and appropriate education be extended to children of younger ages (3-5) and that early intervention programs be put in place for children from birth to age two (4). -
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), Public Law 101-336
While ensuring free and appropriate education for individuals with disabilities was paramount, it was essential that these individuals be protected from oppression after they entered the work force as well. Thus, in 1990, an important act outlawing "discimination against people with disabilities in the private sector" (5) brought hope for the professional future as well. Another important aspect of this ruling was that AIDS was included in the definition of disability. -
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), Public Law 101-476
This act replaced the EAHCA act of 1975, and brought with it a host of new legislature. For example, IDEA established the concept of people-first language and added more categories of disability for consideration. A crucial element of IDEA, however, was the introduction of transition programs, requiring that plans be developed for individuals over 16, aimed at effecting a smoother transition to adulthood (6). -
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), Public Law 105-17
IDEA had become the main legislature regarding education of individuals with disabilities. It was thus revisited again in 1997, when several pragmatic issues were put into law. For example, this 1997 version required that "a general education teacher .. be a member of the [child's] IEP team" (7). While this act brought less essential shifts, adding pragmatic requirements strengthened the usefulness of this public law. -
IDEIA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act), Public Law 108-446
The most recent change in the EACHA/IDEA saga is the IDEIA. A main aspect of this act is to introduce the concept of Response to Intervention to determine whether a child is eligible to be served, thus moving away from outdated IQ/achievement comparison methods (8). Other pragmatic changes were made as well, such as no longer requiring short-term goals on IEPs unless the student had opted out of statewide testing.
