-
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
The Supreme Court of Illinois had decided that free education laws were not required for those who were 'feebleminded', or 'mentally deficient'. They argued that because of the limited amount of intelligence that they had, they would not reap the benefits of good education. Eventually it had turned in favor of advocating for the education of all students. -
The Elementary Act and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
This initiated the role of the federal government to protect, and provide, students who come from low-income homes so that they may have equal access to public education. The ESEA provided a grant program that helped states improve programs for children with disabilities. The program did not provide guidelines on how to develop these programs. Rather it was there to encourage state and schools. -
PARC v. Commonwealth
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v Commonwealth was a court case that gave the right to children with disabilities to receive free public education. It established things such as, "zero rejects" and "least restrictive environments". Overall, this meant that kids that have, or were born with, intellectual disabilities should have the exact same access to public education. -
Public Law 94-142
Public Law 94-142 is the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This federal law guaranteed that all children, including those with disabilities, will receive free education. Not only will children with disabilities receive free education, but they will receive related services. This law was put into place in 1975, but then it was amended in 1986. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf -
(DREDF) Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) was developed in 1979. It is a national civil rights law that is directed by those who have disabilities, as well as the parents to children who have disabilities. This promoted the human rights of people with disabilities through training and education. https://dredf.org/ -
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education
This was centered around a child who was handicapped and his parents. They had stated that the local school district had not complied with the Handicapped Act. They had stated that the school district had refused to place the child in a classroom with non handicapped students, which violates the act. So, the outcome determined that students with disabilities have a right to be included in general education spaces. Which includes classrooms, and extracurriculars. -
Individuals w/ Disabilities Education Act
IDEA states that children who receive special education should be able to learn in the least restrictive environment. This requires that each student has an (ITP) before the age of 16. An ITP is an individual transition plan. This is apart of their IEP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66g6TbJbs2g -
IDEIA P.L 108-446
(IDEIA) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act allows districts to use a response-to-intervention (RTI) model to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. It no longer requires that a child has a severe discrepency between acheivements and intellectual ability to qualify for RTI. It also helped to eliminate the use of short-term objectives in an IEP. -
Winkelman v. Parma City School District
The Supreme Court decided that parents can pursue IDEA claims on their behalf independent of their children's rights. It affirmed parental rights, and their essential role in ensuring their children receive free and appropriate education (FAPE). The holding stated that this is vindicating parental rights, rather than simple enforcing the rights of their children. -
Endrew F. v Douglas County School District
This child had diagnosed with Autism, and ADHD. He attended public schools up until the fourth grade. He was not making progress.After putting him in a private school and making progress, his parents wanted to place him back in public school again with an IEP but it was the same as before. So, his parents requested tuition reimbursement to put him back into a private school. So the takeaway from this court case clarifies that schools must provide challenging IEPs.