-
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
This amendment establishes equal protection. All citizens of the United States are protected under the law and no state can deprive any United States citizen life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. (U.S. Const. amend. XIV) -
Watson v. City of Cambridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that a child, who is determined to be weak in mind, cannot benefit from schooling. Watson v. City of Camrbidge, 32 N.E. 864 (1893) -
Plessy v. Ferguson
This case rules a "separate but equal" policy in public facilities. The ruling is used to reinforce segregation in public schools. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) -
The White House Conference on Children
The White House Conference on Children commences and focuses on the state of children, specifically children with special needs. This conference helps shift education for students with special needs from an isolated space to a public school space. However, students with special needs are still segregated from their non-disabled peers. (Yell, 2012). -
Compulsory Education: All States
All states establish a compulsory education by law for all children in their states. (US Legal, Inc., 2010, http://education.uslegal.com/compulsory-education-overview/). -
Beattie v. State Board of Education
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rules that school officials are legally allowed to exclude a student with a disability regardless for how long the student has attended the school. Beattie v. State Board of Education 169 Wis. 231 (1919) -
The Council for Exceptional Children
The Council for Exceptional Children is established. The organization helps gain rights for students and individuals with disabilities at the federal level as well as the state level. The Council for Exceptional Children focuses on enhancing the development of innovative educational programming, teacher education, and policies that impact children and youth with special needs (Yell, 2012). -
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
The Society of Sisters in Oregon argue that the state compulsory education act infringes on parents' rights to choose the school their child should attend. The court rules that education is compulsory but parents can choose if their children attend public school. Exceptions are also made for children who are physically unable to attend school, children who complete the eighth grade, and children who are too far from their local public school. Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925) -
Cuyahoga County Ohio Council for the Retarded Child
The Cuyahoga County Ohio Council for the Retarded Child is established and is the first advocacy group that originally consists of mothers of children who are cognitively impaired. These mothers protest the exclusion of their children in public school and are able to establish a special class for their children. -
Board of Education of Cleveland Heights et al. v. The State Ex Rel. Goldman
The court rules that the state compulsory education law allows the Department of Education to exclude certain students based on IQ tests and other assessments the Department uses with students in the public school system. Board of Education v. State, Ex Rel. Goldman 47 Ohio App. 417 (1934) -
The National Association for Retarded Citizens
The National Association for Retarded Citizens is established in 1950 and focuses on providing information to people, monitoring the quality of services for individuals who are cognitively impaired, and advocating for the rights of individuals who are cognitively impaired (Yell, 2012). -
Brown v. Board of Education
This case overturns Plessy v. Ferguson and states that separate but equal is no longer constitutional. Although this case, along with Plessy v. Ferguson is thought of with the Black civil rights movement, they both also impacted students with disabilities. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) -
Education of the Mentally Retarded Act
This act is passed by Congress so that funds can be created and given to teachers of children who are mentally retarded. This money goes towards training and professional development. Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act. P.L. 85-926 (1958) -
Department of Public Welfare v. Haas
The Supreme Court of Illinois rules that the state’s compulsory education legislation does not require the state to provide a free appropriate public education for students with special needs (the feeble-minded or mentally deficient). The Court also holds that these students cannot learn from or benefit from a good education. Department of Public Welfare v. Haas 15 Ill.2d 204 (1958) -
The Training of Professional Personnel Act
This act, like the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958, helps train faculty and staff to educate children with cognitive impairments. Training of Professional Personnel Act P.L. 86-158 (1959) -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
This act provides funding from the federal government to the states for educating students as part of the war on poverty. The ESEA focuses funding on programs for low-income students and special education. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 P.L. 89-10 (1965) -
The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is amended to enhance the funding for students with disabilities. The Bureau of Education of the Handicapped and the National Advisory Council are established via this act (AVoice, n.d., http://www.avoiceonline.org/edpol/timeline.html). Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments P.L. 89-750 (1966) -
The Education of the Handicapped Act is Passed
This act expands state grant programs for children with special needs, provides grants to colleges, universities, and other higher education institutions to train special education teachers, and creates regional resource centers. Education of the Handicapped Act P.L. 91-230 (1970) -
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania
The District Court in Pennsylvania rules that students with disabilities cannot be excluded from a free public education. The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children argued that the students' 14th Amendment rights were not being upheld. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1257 (E.D. PA 1972) -
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia
The court rules that the Board of Education has to provide all children with special needs a public education. Also, the school district has to install and provide due process safeguards. Children with special needs cannot be excluded, suspended, expelled, or reassigned without due process. Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972) -
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
This law prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Section 504 protects students in public education because it mandates that any individual with a disability cannot be excluded from an entity that receives federal funding. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973) -
The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps
The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps (TASH) is established. It helps support individuals with disabilities by giving information on best practices, research reports, and is actively involved in court cases (Yell, 2012). -
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
This act mandates that all children with disabilities have a right to a free appropriate public education. It ensures that students with special needs receive an education that meets their needs and helps them through school and prepares them for a future career and independent living. Each state needs to establish a process of accountability so that all students with special needs are getting the education they need and deserve. Education for All Handicapped Children Act P.L. 94-142 (1975) -
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley
The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Education for All Handicapped Children of 1975 does not require that the education of students with special needs be created to help students achieve their full potential. Supportive services and the individual education plan should focus on helping the child educationally benefit from their education. This court decision also defined free appropriate public education. Bd. of Edu. of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley 45 U.S. 176 (1982) -
Roncker v. Walter
The Court in this case rules in favor of inclusion and establishes a portability principle. School districts cannot place children based on their disability, rather each child needs to be assessed and from there an appropriate placement can be decided. Roncker v. Walter 700 F2d.1058 (6th Circuit Court 1983) -
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
This case was about a young girl who needed a clean intermittent catheterization to be performed every 3 to 4 hours to prevent kidney damage. The Supreme Court established a “bright-line test” where, if the related services needed to be performed by a physician, then the school district was not responsible for providing the related services. Irving Independent School District v. Tatro 468 U.S. 883 (1984) -
School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass v. Department of Education of Massachusetts
The Court in this case holds that parents have a right to be reimbursed for private school education when the IEP and the placement in the public school are inadequate, and the private school placement is appropriate for the child. School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass v. Department of Education of Mass. 471 U.S. 359 (1985) -
The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986
This act allows parents to recover attorney’s fees if they win a due process hearing or a court case under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. It was signed into law by President Reagan. The Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 P.L. 99-372 (1986) -
The Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986
The amendments are signed into law by President Reagan and focus on early childhood education and intervention of children with special needs. Education of the Handicapped Amendments of 1986 P.:. 99-457 (1986) -
Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools
The United States Court of Appeals holds that an Individualized Education Plan of a child attending pubic school must be created before a decision about placement can be carried out. Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools 853 F. 2d 256 (1988) -
Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District
The judge of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rules that, under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, school boards are required to provide special education services to any student with disabilities, regardless of the severity of their disability. Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District 875 F. 2d 854 (1989) -
National Education Summit
George H.W. Bush brings 50 governors together to discuss the state of education. As a result of this summit, several goals such as an increase in high school graduation, an increase in the quality of teacher education and professional development, and an increase in students’ math and science abilities. The goals from this summit were used in future advocacy and policies for education (Yell, 2012). -
Americans with Disabilities Act
This law covers people with disabilities and special needs and does not allow discrimination in the workplace and in schools, public and private. Americans with Disabilities Act P.L. 101-336 (1990) -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990
This act renames the Education for All Handicapped Children Act the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It adds two new disability categories: traumatic brain injury and autism. It also adds a transition requirement to the Individualized Education Plan for students 16 years old or older. This act introduces “people first” language when speaking about and with students with special needs. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act P.L. 105-17 (1990) -
Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 21 v. Illinois State Board of Education
The court rules that the school district did not offer an appropriate education because the relationship between the parents and the school administrators was hostile. In this case, the relationship impeded the IEP process and did not give the child the appropriate education they are legally allowed to have. Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District No. 21 v. Illinois State Board of Education 938 F. Supp. 712 (7th Cir. 1991) -
The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994
This is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that focused on the implementation of standards-based education nationally. The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 P.L. 103-382 (1994) -
Educate America Act
This act is signed into law to hold all students to higher standards. The act focuses on school readiness, graduation, academic achievement, leadership in math and science, teacher professional development, and participation of parents. Educate America Act P.L. 103-227 (1994) -
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997
The amendments to the IDEA affected the IEP, discipline, and due process. First, disciplinary procedures and provisions were added. Second, the amendments required states to offer mediation to parents before going to due process. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 U.S.C. 20 Sec. 1401 (1997) -
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R.
The court in this case rules that grade equivalent scoring can be used to determine educational benefit for a child in special education. Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R. 200 F. 3d. 341 (5th Cir. 2000) -
No Child Left Behind
President George W. Bush signs No Child Left Behind Act, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This act requires states to develop education standards and assessments of these standards. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 P.L. 107-110 (2002) -
The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education publishes a report that consists of reforms and recommendations for special education so that special education is aligned with the No Child Left Behind Act. The report urges special education staff to focus on results and data, prevention, and make sure students are receiving the education they need. (Wright's Law, 2015, http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/2002/reauth.comm.report.0702.htm) -
Individuals wtih Disabiltiies Improvement Act
This act defines what a highly qualified special education teacher is, moves toward measurable, annual goals in the IEP rather than short-term objectives, and encourages the use of response-to-intervention to determine if students are in need of special education services. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) -
Schaffer v. Weast
The Supreme Court rules that the party seeking due process under the IDEA is the one that needs to prove what they are filing. Schaffer v. Weast 377 F. 3d 449 (4th Cir. 2004) -
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
The Court in this case holds that non-attorney fees for services (ie: expert witnesses) in IDEA action are not billed to school districts. Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy 548 U.S. 291 (2006) -
Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008
The amendments to the ADA broadens the definitions of disability and major life activity. “Disability” now also includes impairments that are in remission or episodic as long as the impairment significantly limits a major life activity. A major life activity was expanded to include such activities as caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, sleeping, bending, speaking, reading, and thinking. Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 P.L. 110-325 (2008) -
New Hampshire Statutes on Special Education
The New Hampshire Education Statutes are reauthorized in 2009 and include rules, regulations, and laws concerning special education and the learning of students with special needs. NH RSA 186-C:1-29 -
Drobnicki by Drobnicki v. Poway Unified School District
The court rules that if a school district does not put in a significant amount of effort to include parents or guardians in an IEP meeting, FAPE is being denied. Drobnicki by Drobnicki v. Poway Unified School District 109 LRP 73255 (2009) -
New Hampshire Rules for the Education of Children with Disabilities is Established
The New Hampshire State Board of Education adopts the amended New Hampshire Rules for the Education of Children with Disabilities which focus on appropriate behavioral interventions for students with special needs. N.H. Code Admin. R. Ann. Ed. 1113.04-.09
