-
Brown V. Board of Education
This landmark Supreme Court ruling declared that it was unconstitutional to segregate students on the basis of race. After this decision, parents of children with disabilities began bringing forth discrimination lawsuits against school districts for segregating and excluding their children. Parents argued that schools were discriminating against their children based on their disabilities. -
Elementary as Secondary Education Act
President Lyndon B. Johnson signs into law the Elementary as Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which calls for access to equal public education for all students as well as funding primary and secondary education for students from impoverished backgrounds. -
PARC
The PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; US District Court for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania sided with students with disabilities, deciding that students must be placed in publicly funded school settings that meet their individual needs based on proper and thorough evaluation. -
PARC and Mills v. Board of Education Spurs Investigation
A Congressional investigation follows the rapid succession of PARC and Mills, seeking to discover how many students with special education needs were not having their needs met by public schools. The investigation discovered approximately 8 million children with disabilities, of whom about half (3.9 million) were having their needs met, 2.5 million were receiving substandard education, and 1.75 million were not in school. -
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia made it unlawful for the DC Board of Education to deny individual access to publicly funded learning opportunities based on intellectual disability or behavioral issues. -
1973 Rehabilitation Act
This law approves grants to states for vocational rehabilitation services, supported employment, independent living, and client assistance. The Rehabilitation Act also includes a set of rules focused on the rights, advocacy, and protection of persons with disabilities (section 504, accommodations). -
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142)
Congress decided that all students with special needs have the right to an education. This law put in place a system to hold states and school districts accountable for providing education to all handicapped children. This ensures that all children with disabilities have access to an education and due process of law. -
Armstrong v. Kline
This case determined that one school district’s practice of restricting special services to a 180 day-per-year period was in violation of EAHCA. -
Period: to
Push to Deregulate
The 1980's were marked by several pushes to deregulate many of the federal provisions that had been put in place for people with disabilities. -
S-1 v. Turlington
In this case, the district court determined that it is in violation of EAHCA to expel a student from school for behavioral disruptions that stem from their disability. In addition, this decision put the burden of proof on the school district to show that a disruption was not directly caused by the disability, and provides students with disabilities with more detailed procedural protections against expulsion than are provided to students without disabilities. -
Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
The U.S. Supreme court ruled for the first time on PL 94-142 (Now IDEA). Amy Rowley’s parents argued that she would learn more if the school provided her with a sign language interpreter. The courts decided that the school met their obligations under law for appropriate education because Amy was performing at/or above the level of her non-disabled peers. -
Irving Independent School District V. Tatro
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro found under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act that a school board in Texas had to provide catheterization services during school hours to a student with spina bifida. -
School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Mass. DOE
School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education. Found under the EAHCA that parents could be reimbursed for deciding to place their child in a private school after disagreeing with an IEP that public school officials designed. -
Handicapped Children Protections Act
This act gave parents of children with disabilities more say in the Development of their child’s IEP’s. -
Honig v. Doe
Honig v. Doe. US Supreme Court ruled that a school district in California had violated EAHCA for indefinitely suspending a child for violent and disruptive behavior related to his disability. In addition, the court affirmed that states must provide services directly to students with disabilities when a school district fails to do so. -
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
This case ruled in favor of parents who objected to the removal of their child from an institution for the severely disabled when school officials proposed a less restrictive environment. The judge ruled that because no IEP was created before attempting to move the student, the school district was in violation of EAHCA. -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
This case determined that students with disabilities have the right to be included in general education and extracurricular environments; however, it required that school districts provide a continuum of services so that students received an appropriate level of exposure to non-disabled students, determined on a case-by-case basis. This case established some precedent for the principle of the Least Restrictive Environment in future court decisions. -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District
This case affirmed that school districts are obligated to provide special education to children regardless of the severity of their disability. -
IDEA Amendment
The Education for all Handicapped Children Act was amended to become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which ensures all children and youths with disabilities have the right to free, appropriate public education. Each State and Locality must have plans to ensure Identification, FAPE, Due process, Parent/Guardian Surrogate Consultation, LRE, IEP, Nondiscriminatory Evaluation, Confidentiality, and Personal Development. Special education and related services are guaranteed. -
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans With Disabilities Act provides protections of civil rights in the specific areas of employment, transportation, public accommodations, state and local government, and telecommunications. -
Florence County School District Four v. Carter
Shannon Carter’s parents didn’t feel her IEP was adequate for her, and they had to place her into a private school. Courts favored her parents stating that Shannon’s IEP was inappropriate, and that the schools either provide free and appropriate public education or place the child in an appropriate private setting of the state's choice. -
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
The Court ruled that the public school board was required to provide a sign language interpreter for a student in a private-religious school. The court rejected arguments that it violated the first Amendment. -
IDEA Reauthorized
IDEA was reauthorized to provide students the same access to curriculum. -
Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education
This case, finding in favor of the school district’s decision to move a child with autism to a more restrictive environment, established that mainstreaming a student is not required if the student will not receive an educational benefit from mainstreaming. In addition, this ruling determines that any IDEA preference for mainstreaming is simply a preference, and not required, and social considerations are not to take precedence over education benefits. -
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F
Court Ruled that IDEA requires the school board provide nursing services to disabled students who need them during the school day. -
No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) shined a light on where students were making progress and where they needed additional support, regardless of race, income, zip code, disability, home language, or background. Most students with disabilities are to take standardized tests of academic achievement and achieve at a level equal to students without disabilities. -
IDEA Reauthorized Once More
IDEA was reauthorized once again as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA): the basic requirements of the law (IDEA) did not change, but it required greater standards for special education classes, and called for early intervention for students. -
Every Student Succeeds Act
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the successor to NCLB. This law requires all American students to be taught to high academic standards. Like NCLB, it emphasized standardized academic achievement tests for students with disabilities. -
Endrew F. v Douglas County School District
District Court used precedent in the Rowley case to conclude that Endrew’s IEP enabled him to make progress in school. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of Endrew and stated that providing only the minimum education isn’t an education, and that IDEA demands more.
