History of Special Education Law

By becky.hetro
  • Period: to

    History of Special Education Law

  • Brown v. Board of Education

    The Brown v. Board of Education took place during the civil rights movement. It was the first case in history that required changes in school policies for students with disabilities. It was in this case that it was determined unconstitutional for students to be segregated based on race. Through time, the precedents in this law created changes in school policy for students with disabilities.

  • Diana v. State Board of Education

    This case ruled that students must be assessed for special education in their primary language.

  • PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    This case specified that all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 must be provided with a free public education. The court also stated that students should be educated in a program most like the programs provided for their non-disabled peers.

  • Mills v. Board of Education

    This case charged that students were improperly being excluded from school without due process of law. It resulted in mandating that all students with disabilities be provided with a publicly supported education.The court also determined procedural safeguards which are: the right to a hearing, with representation, a record, and an impartial hearing officer; the right to appeal; the right to have access to records; and the requirement of written notice at all stages of the process.

  • Armstrong v. Kline

    In this case, families claimed that their children with disabilities regressed during long breaks (after 180 school days). They said that their children were denied of their right to receive a free public education in excess of 180 days. The court agreed and started the Extended School Year (ESY) program.

  • Larry P. v. Riles

    In this case, a federal district court banned the use of standardized IQ instruments that were used to place African American students in classes for students with educable mental retardation. The court ruled that the tests were racially and culturally biased against students from racial minorities.

  • Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley

    As a result of this court case, the court clearly defined exactly what a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) was. They determined that a FAPE consisted of educational instruction designed to meet the unique needs of each and every individual student with disabilities, as well as be supported by any services that the student needs to benefit from instruction. These educational services have to be provided at public expense, meet state standards, and be based off of the IEP.

  • Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

    This case clarified what services were included in related services for students with disabilities. The Supreme Court established three criteria for related services. They were: (a) the student must be IDEA eligible, (b) the service must be necessary to assist the child to benefit from special education, and (c) the service must be performed by a nurse or other qualified person. If a non-physician could provide the services, the school district was responsible for providing them.

  • Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Educatioin

    This was the first case in which the Court established the rights of parents to be reimbursed for private school education.

  • Honig v. Doe

    This case stated that the stay-put provision prevents schools from moving students from placement to placement pending a resolution of a due process hearing or judicial action. Students stay in their current placement to maintain stability and continuity until the dispute is resolved

  • Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District

    This case ruled that all school districts are required to provide special education services to all students, regardless of the severity of the disability.

  • Danny R.r. v. State Board of Education of Borough of Clementon School District

    This case emphasizes that the general education setting is not always a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Schools must provide a FAPE in the general education classroom as much as possible. If the general education classroom does not meet students needs, they may be removed and placed in a special education classroom, while being mainstreamed as much as possible. Students must be provided with supplementary aids and services to modify the general education program.

  • Oberti v. Board of Education

    This case requires that school districts must show that they have considered a range of supplementary aids and services before removing a student from the general education setting. If a student shows that they can benefit from the general education setting with the use of supplementary aids and services, then it must be attempted. If the general education classroom is clearly inappropriate for a student, he/she may be moved to a more appropriate, restrictive placement.

  • Florence County School District Four v. Carter

    In this case, standards were discussed in which parents may obtian reimbursement for private education. The Court determined that the private institution did not have to meet the definition of a FAPE.

  • Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Rachel H.

    This case demonstrated the importance of school districts placing students in the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services. This case proved that it was less costly and more beneficial for Rachel to spend the full day in the general education setting along with supplementary aids and services. There was no evidence presented that Rachel couldn't benefit from the general education setting.

  • Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

    This case, similar to the "Tatro" case, restated that as long as the related service that is needed does not have to be provided by a physician, the service is considered a related service under the IDEA and needs to be provided by the school district. The Supreme Court stated that the school district is required to provide all necessary health services to qualified students with disabilities regardless of the intensity level or complexity.

  • T.R. v. Kingwood Township

    This case clarified the meaning of the LRE. They stated that the LRE is an environment that educates non-disabled children with disabled children and in the same school the child would attend if he/she was non-disabled.

  • Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    This case, which was originally filed in 1994, made it clear that students must be educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. School districts must increase their capacity to provide students with supplementary aids and services, related services, and specially designed instruction to support students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Services must be available to all students and be designed to provide meaningful educational benefits.

  • Schaffer v. Weast

    The U.S. Supreme Court stated that parents, not school districts, must provide proof that their children aren't receiving a FAPE in legal disputes.