-
Brown v. Board of Education
The Supreme Court made it illegal for schools to separate students based on race, even if the two classrooms or schools had exactly the same resources. According to Vaughn, Bos, and Schumm (2014), this was the first time a law was created to deal with the biases and unfair treatment of students (p.4). This is important in special education, because even if it's easier, students should not be separated, but educated as much as possible with their peers in the least restrictive environment. -
Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230)
This law was important in special education because the federal government helped schools financially with developing their special education programs. This was a continuation from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) where the federal government supported schools financially to provide free or reduced lunches and also provided financial assistance with their special education programs. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia
According to our text, this piece of legislation was significant when P. L. 94-142 was created (p.4). This law not only guaranteed children access to public education, but also progress checks, goals and possibly other services to help them meet their goals and needs. -
Vocational Rehabilitation Act (VRA) P.L. 93-112, Section 504
This law made an important change in allowing individuals with physical disabilities access to buildings and opportunities as those without disabilities. If facilities such as schools and businesses wanted to keep receiving federal funding, they needed to make appropriate changes to allow everyone access (p. 9). -
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142)
This law states that "all children, regardless of their disability, receive a free and appropriate public education" (p. 5). Our text also states this is what's "known as the mainstreaming law" (p. 6). This law is so important because schools started identifying students with disabilities and providing special education in the least restrictive environment (p. 5). -
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
According to our text, this case was so important because it helped define free appropriate public education (FAPE) (p. 4). In this case, even though it would have helped a deaf student to have an interpreter in the classroom, it was found not necessary because she was already performing and communicating just as well or better than her classmates. It was decided that schools need to supply adequate services for students to learn which may not always be the best or all options available. -
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments (P.L. 99-457)
This law required states to provide early intervention programs for children with disabilities from birth through age 2 and also include free appropriate public education for children ages 3 to 5 (p. 6). -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 101-476)
This law replaced P.L. 94-142 and also included extra special education services and assistive technology (p. 6). It required schools to think about transition services for students from school to work no later than age 16. The categories of traumatic brain injury and autism were added. "People first" language was established (p. 6). -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P. L. 105-17)
This law is significant in current special education for a number of reasons. It allows the special education teacher working in the regular education classroom to help general education students along with the special education students. The regular education teacher is also required "to be a part of the IEP team" (p. 7). Also, if a student is listed on the IEP as having behavior problems, they must also have a behavioral plan to address the problematic behaviors. -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (P.L. 108-446)
This law is important in how special education looks today. It changed the requirements for identifying students with disabilities from having a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement to allowing teams to identify students based on their response-to-intervention (RTI) (p. 7).
