-
Brown vs. Board of Education
Primary Focus: This law was created to abolish the division of Black and White children in schools.
Outcome: Started creating more equality in classrooms, lead to the Civil Rights Act (1964). Reference
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). Brown v. Board of Education (1954). National Archives and Records Administration. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/brown-v-board-of-education -
Period: to
History of Special Education
-
Civil Rights Act (1964)
Primary Focus: abolish the workplace discrimination of an individuals race, sex, heritage, etc.
Outcome: Led to more equality in the workplace and also influenced movements with education and individuals with disabilities. Reference
Legal highlight: The civil rights act of 1964. U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)
Primary Focus: To provide funding to schools in underserved communities and close the achievement gap.
Outcome: led to different educational rules, regulations, and movements, created a foundation for children with disabilities as well. Reference
Paul, C. (2024, February 29). Elementary and secondary education act of 1965. Social Welfare History Project. -
PARC vs. Commonwealth of PA
Primary focus: To include children with disabilities in public schools in Pennsylvania.
Outcome: Inclusion of children with disabilities in public schools, led to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL-142). Reference
Ross, N. (2022, May 26). Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (parc) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia. -
Larry P. vs. Riles
Primary Focus: To do away with the testing of African Americans with disabilities in education.
Outcome: Was found to be unjust and that testing was not accurate. Reference
(2.45) what is the larry P. V. riles case? how did it originate?. Special Education Rights and Responsibilities. (n.d.). https://serr.disabilityrightsca.org/serr-manual/chapter-2-information-on-evaluations-assessments/2-45-what-is-the-larry-p-v-riles-case-how-did-it-originate/ -
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Section 504
Primary Focus: Do away with the discrimination of individuals with disabilities receiving financial help.
Outcome: Led to the Education for All handicapped Children Act, set rules and regulations in place financially. Reference
Rehabilitation act of 1973 (rehab act). Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability. (n.d.). https://askearn.org/page/the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973-rehab-act -
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (1975)
Primary Focus: Implement appropriate and free education for children with disabilities.
Outcome: creation of IEP's and the least restrictive environment, and inclusion of individuals in the public school classroom. Reference
Office, U. S. G. A. (1980, September 10). The education for all handicapped children act of 1975. U.S. GAO. https://www.gao.gov/products/113316 -
Armstrong vs. Kline (1979)
Primary Focus: to develop an extended school year plan for children with disabilities.
Outcome: allowed for children with disabilities to receive ESY. Reference
Armstrong v. Kline, 476 F. supp. 583 (E.D. Pa. 1979). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/476/583/1378802/ -
Hendrick Hudson School vs. Rowley (1982)
Primary Focus: To implement free and suitable education to those with disabilities in public schools.
Outcome: The creation of FAPE (free public education) rule under the IDEA Act. Reference
Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) -
Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro (1984)
Primary Focus: To decide whether it is appropriate and necessary for a public school to administer medical assistance/services.
Outcome: The requirement of medical services to individuals with disabilities in public schools. Reference
Irving ISD v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984) -
Burlington School Committee vs. DOE (1985)
Primary Focus: to decide whether or not parents were allowed to dispute a conflict within the public school through EHA.
Outcome: more parental involvement and rights regarding their children's education. Reference -
EHA Amendment (1986)
Primary Focus: To provide younger individuals with disabilities the appropriate services.
Outcome: added to the development of the prior EHA, provided younger individuals with disabilities early intervention services. -
Honig vs. Doe
Primary Focus: A school in California wrongly suspended a student for a behavior based on their disability.
Outcome: Students with disabilities are still allowed in the school and continue to receive FAPE. Reference
Manifestation determination. (n.d.). CalEdAttorney. https://www.caledattorney.com/manifestation-determination -
Danny R.R. vs. State Board of Education
Primary Focus: creation of the LRE (least restrictive environment) for children with disabilities.
Outcomes: That the special education class was appropriate for Danny. Reference
Daniel R.r., Plaintiff-appellant, v. State Board of Education, et al., Defendants,el Paso Independent School District, Defendant-appellee, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989). (2020). Justia Law. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/1036/382507/ -
Oberti vs. Board of Education
Primary Focus: If Oberti would receive services in a regular education classroom.
Outcome: Inclusion in the regular education classroom along with the appropriate services. Reference
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon | The Public Interest Law Center. (n.d.). Pubintlaw.org. https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/oberti-v-board-of-education-of-the-borough-of-clementon/ -
American's with Disabilites Act (1990)
Primary Focus: Do away with discrimination of people with disabilities in all services in the United States.
Outcomes: Added to different policies in Special Education. Reference
U.S. Department of Labor. (2024). Americans with Disabilities Act. Dol.gov; U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada -
Board of Education in Sacramento CA vs. Holland
Primary Focus: If it was Hollands best interest to be in a regular ed classroom or a different environment.
Outcome: Holland was able to be in a regular education classroom with appropriate services.
Reference
Sacramento City Unified School District, Board of Education (9th Cir. 1994). (n.d.). Justia Law. -
IDEA Amendment (1997)
Primary Focus: inclusion of general ed teachers and specialists, children with disabilities in a general ed classroom, overall better implementation of education for all students regardless of disabilities.
Outcome: Helped development future IDEA Amendments, led to the creation of No Child Left Behind (2001). Reference
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Discipline Provisions in P.L. 105-17. (n.d.). Www.everycrsreport.com. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-42.html -
Cedar Rapids Community School District vs. Garrett F. Mills
Primary Focus: If it was the school districts responsibility financially to provide health services for Garrett.
Outcome: Under IDEA the school district should provide said health services. Reference
Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. (2019). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/96-1793 -
No Child Left Behind (2001)
Primary Focus: To Implement ore policies and regulations for general education and special education standards in schools.
Outcome: Provided better standards for schools to follow involving with disabilities and general ed classrooms in their education. Reference
Klein, A. (2015, April 10). No Child Left Behind: an Overview. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04 -
IDEA Amendment (2004)
Primary Focus: Expanding the rules and regulations of the prior IDEA Amendment of 1986 and 1990 (providing services to students with disabilities in education)
Outcome: Added onto the No Child Left Behind (2004) Reference
Reauthorization of the IDEA 2004 - Laws, Regulations, Policies (CA Dept of Education). (2018). Ca.gov. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/ideareathztn.asp -
Endrew F vs. the Douglas County School District
Primary Focus: That Endrew was not receiving the proper education and his parents took him out of public school and placed him in a private school setting.
Outcome: schools must provide appropriate education and IEPs for students with disabilities. Reference
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. (2020). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-827