-
Civil Rights Act of 1954
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in the public schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. But implementation of the Court's decision went slowly, with massive resistance from the states especially in the South. In 1957, a federal court ordered the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. -
The U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case that it was unconstitutional for educational institutions to segregate children by race. This landmark legal ruling would have far-reaching implications for special education arena. -
Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Prohibits discrimination in public schools because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Public schools include elementary schools, secondary schools and public colleges and universities. But the legal framework for anti-discrimination laws affecting public school students was laid a decade earlier. -
Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965
To address the inequality of educational opportunity for underprivileged children. This landmark legislation provided resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students had access to quality education.Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 to address the inequality of educational opportunity for underprivileged children. This landmark legislation provided resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students had access to quality education. -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Was signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson as part of the “War on Poverty.” ESEA not only called for equal access to education for all students, but also federal funding for both primary and secondary education for students disadvantaged by poverty. -
PARC and Mills
During the early 1970s, two cases were catalysts for change: Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v.Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC)and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia.PARC dealt with the exclusion of children with mental retardation from public schools. In the subsequent settlement, it was agreed that educational placement decisions must include a process of parental participation and a means to resolve disputes. -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sided in favor of students with intellectual and learning disabilities in state-run institutions. PARC v. Penn called for students with disabilities to be placed in publicly funded school settings that met their individual educational needs, based on a proper and thorough evaluation. -
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia Case
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia students classified as “exceptional” – including those with mental and learning disabilities and behavioral issues. This ruling made it unlawful for the D.C. Board of Education to deny these individuals access to publicly funded educational opportunities. -
Congressional Investigation
In the wave of the PARC and Mills ruling, [AR1] Congress set out to uncover how many children with special education needs were being underserved. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped found that there were 8 million children requiring special education services. Of this total, 3.9 million students adequately had their educational needs met, 2.5 million were receiving a substandard education and 1.75 million weren’t in school. -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Prohibited discrimination against those with disabilities in programs that received federal funding -
Education Amendments
Included rights from PARC v. Commonwealth of PA and Mills v. Board of Education in law -
The Individuals with Disabilities Act
Was the new name for the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975! -
Public Law 94-142
President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, otherwise known as Public Law 94-142. This law required all states that accepted money from the federal government were required to provide equal access to education for children with disabilities, in addition to providing them with one free meal per day. States had the responsibility to ensure compliance under the law within all of their public school systems. -
Public Law 99-457
Was an amendment to the All Handicapped Children Act, which mandated that individual states provide services to families of children born with disabilities from the time they are born. Previously, these services were not available until a child reached the age of three. -
Armstrong v. Kline
Parents of student noticed their children in special education began to regress during summer break;
Ruled in favor of plantiffs and brought forth the extended school year
ESY is available to children with disabilities. -
Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley
School sued due to interpreter being taken away from deaf student
Court ruled in favor of school because Amy Rowley was succeeding without the interpreter .Case offered a new interpretation of FAPE
Created a definition of FAPE and clarified that students don't have to have maximum support but enough to receive educational benefits -
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley
458 U.S. 176 – This was the first special education case decided by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Court held that an IEP must be reasonably calculated for a child to receive educational benefit, but the school district is not required to provide every service necessary to maximize a child’s potential. -
Irving Independent Sch. Dist. v. Amber Tatro
468 U.S. 883 (1984) – The Court held that provision of clean intermittent catheterization was a “related service” under the IDEA and not a “medical service,” because the service was necessary for the student to attend school. The services requested did not fall within the medical exclusion because they need not be performed by a physician. The Court noted that “Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children and to make such access meaningful.” -
Burlington Sch. Committee v. Mass. Bd. of Ed.
The Court established, for the first time, the right of parents to be reimbursed for their expenditures for private special education. This decision (together with the Court’s decision in Florence v. Carter) generally stands for the proposition that a school district may be required to reimburse parents for tuition and other expenses related to a private school placement when (1) the IEP and placement offered by the school district were inadequate or inappropriate. -
Did you know?
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was later amended in 1986 ..... financial incentives were created for education children birth-2 using early intervention methods Required Individuals Family Service Plans for children and families Lowered the age of eligibility for special education services to age 3. -
Handicapped Children’s Protection Act
President Reagan signed the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act, a law that gave parents of children with disabilities more say in the development of their child’s Individual Education Plan, or IEP. -
Honig v. Doe
The Court addressed the IDEA’s “stay put” provision, explaining that in enacting “stay put”. The Court also noted that the IEP is the “centerpiece of the [IDEA’s] education delivery system” and explained that “Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness.” -
Public Law 101-476
Called for significant changes to Public Law 94-142, or the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Traumatic brain injury and autism were added as new disability categories. Additionally, Congress mandated that as a part of a student’s IEP, an individual transition plan, or ITP, must be developed to help the student transition to post-secondary life. -
Individuals with Disabilities Act
Added traumatic brain injury and autism as new categories of disability
Transition element for students age 16 or older was added
"People first" language began -
Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter
The Court discussed the standards pursuant to which a parent may obtain reimbursement for a private educational placement. Importantly, the Court determined that reimbursement does not necessarily require that the private school meet the IDEA’s definition of free appropriate public education; the private school does not necessarily have to meet the state education standards. -
The Education for all Handicapped Children’s Act
The Education for all Handicapped Children’s Act became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. President Clinton reauthorized IDEA with several key amendments that emphasized providing all students with access to the same curriculum, additionally, states were given the authority to expand the “developmental delay” definition from birth through five years of age to also include students between the ages of six and nine. -
Amended IDEA
Congress amended by calling for early intervention for students, greater accountability and improve educational outcomes, and raised the standards for instructors who teach special education classes. It also required states to demand that local school districts shift up to 15 percent of their special education funds toward general education if it were determined that a disproportionate number of students from minority groups were placed in special education for reasons other than disability. -
Schaffer v. Weast
The Court held that, absent a state statute to the contrary, the party seeking relief bears the burden of proof in an administrative due process proceeding. -
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
In 2002 after the parents of a student with disabilities prevailed in appellate court in a suit demanding that the Arlington Central School District Board of Education in New York state pay the cost of private-school tuition for their son for the years during which they litigated (ultimately successfully) against the school board for individualized services under the IDEA. -
Jacob Winkelman v. Parma City School District
550 U.S. 516 Here, the Court determined that parents may pursue claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on their own behalf, as the rights conferred to parents under the Act exist independently from the rights of their child. -
Endrew F v. Douglas County School District
Parents sued school for tuition to a private school because the school was unable to provide a "meaningful education"
Confusion with terminology in courts led to a debate of what schools are required to provide
Specify standards or not?
Ruled in favor a higher standard of education for students with disabilities