This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
On 17 May, 1954 the Warren Court (after Chief Justice Earl Warren) handed down a 9-0 decision which stated, in no uncertain terms, that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."Headline from Roanoke Tribune, May 22, 1954, Library of Virginia
(1963) PL 88-164
Funds for training professionals, research and demonstration programs
(1964) Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) outlawed the unequal application of voter registration requirements and discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. Specifically, for employers, in the Civil Rights Act, Title 7 guaranteed equal opportunity in employment. Additional titles within the Civil Rights Act ensured the right to vote, provided relief against discrimination, authorized the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, and more.
(1965) PL 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. ch.70
Congress adds Title VI to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 creating a Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (this bureau today is called the Office of Special Education Programs or OSEP).
Educating students with disabilities is still NOT mandated by federal or state law. However, creation of the Bureau signified that a change was on the horizon.
PARC v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E.D. PA 1972)
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 Supp 866
Two significant Supreme Court decisions:
The courts take the position that children with disabilities have an equal right to access education as their non-disabled peers. Although there is no existing federal law that mandates this stance, some students begin going to school as a result of these court decisions.
(1972) Wyatt v. Stickney
The Wyatt v. Stickney lawsuit created minimum standards for the care and rehabilitation of people with mental illness and mental retardation that have been emulated throughout the nation.
(1973) PL 93-112 Rehabilitation Act
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is generally regarded as the first national "civil rights" legislation for persons with disabilities.
This act assures that people with disabilities will not be discriminated against because of disability by any programs or activities receiving federal funds (must provide access with "reasonable accommodation" to individuals with disabilities). Due process procedural safeguards are included in Section 504 to this act.
(1974) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is enacted
Parents are allowed to have access to all personally identifiable information collected, maintained, or used by a school district regarding their child.
(1975) PL 94-142 Education for All Handicapped Children Act
This federal law, also known as EHA, required states to provide "a free, appropriate public education for every child between the ages of 3 and 21 (unless state law does not provide free, public education to children 3 to 5 or 18 to 21 years of age) regardless of how, or how seriously, he may be handicapped." PL 94-142 was the first law to clearly define the rights of disabled children to free appropriate public education (FAPE). It required the school systems to include the parents when meeting about the child or making decisions about his/her education. PL 94-142 mandated an individualized education program (IEP) for every student with a disability. The IEP must include short and long-term goals for the student, as well as ensure that the necessary services and products are available to the student. This law also requires that students are placed in the least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE means placing the student in the most normal setting that is possible. PL 94-142 also ensures that students with disabilities are given nondiscriminatory tests (tests which take into consideration the native-language of the student and the effects of the disability) and that due process procedures are in place (to protect parents and students).
(1977) The final federal regulations of EAHCA are released.
The final federal regulations are enacted at the start of the 1977-1978 school year and provide a set of rules in which school districts must adhere to when providing an education to students with disabilities.
1979 Larry P. v. Riles 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir.)
Established the legal precedent that tests administered to minority children must have been validated for use with that population.
1979 Jose P. v Amback
The Jose P. v. Amback ruling states that New York City schools are required to create School-Based Support Teams to ensure the evaluation and placement procedures for special education stay within the timelines mandated by the state.
(1981) PL 97-35 Title XIX of the Social Security Act
This law allows states to apply for Medicaid funds to provide home-and community-based services for children who are at risk of institutionalization or are residing in an institution.
(1982) Board of Education v. Rowley 458 U.S. 176; 102 S. Ct. 3034; 73 L. Ed. 2d 690
Free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.
(1983) PL 98-199 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments
This law allows for federal funding to create parent training and information centers (PIC) so that parents could learn how to protect the rights that PL 94-142 guarantees their child. PL 98-199 also provided financial incentives to expand services for children from birth to age 3 and the initiatives for transition services from school to adult living for students with disabilities.
(1986) PL 99-372 Handicapped Children's Protection Act
This act allows parents or guardians to be reimbursed for reasonable legal costs if they WIN a hearing or court action. PL 99-372 requires that the case and the costs of the legal proceedings should be discussed with the lawyer prior to any legal action.
(1986) PL 99-457 Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments
These amendments, which are also known as the Early Intervention Amendments to PL 92-142, extended FAPE to all children ages 3 to 5 by October 1991 (Section 619, Part B) in all states which wanted to participate (all 50 wanted to and did, even states that do not have public schooling for children this age). In Section 619, Part H, a new program is created for infants, toddlers, and their families, which requires the development of an individualized family service plan (IFSP) for each child/family served.
(1987) PL 100-297 Javits Act -
The term "gifted and talented" student means children and youth who giv evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require special services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities.
(1988) PL 100-360 Catastrophic Coverage Act
This law allows states to obtain limited funds for IEP-related services and for early intervention/family support services as defined in the individualized family service plan (IFSP).
(1988) PL 100-407 Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act
This act, a.k.a "The Tech Act," recognizes that students with disabilities need special equipment to perform better and more independently (assistive technology). PL 100-407 also authorizes funding to allow states to create statewide systems of technological assistance to meet those needs.
(1989) PL 101-239 Medicare Amendments
This law expands Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) and allows Medicaid funds for "medically necessary" treatment without regard for limits of a state's Medicaid plan.
(1990) PL 101-336 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
This act extends Section 504 of PL 93-112 by requiring the rights of equal access and reasonable accommodation in employment and services provided by both private and public sectors.
(1990) PL 101-392 The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act
This law requires that vocational education for students with disabilities be provided, be in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and when appropriate, be a part of the individualized education program (IEP). PL 101-392 also requires that individuals with disabilities (who are not members of special populations) be provided equal access to vocational programs (i.e. recruitment, enrollment, and placement activities).
(1990) PL 101-476 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
This act, which is also known as the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990, renamed the earlier EHA laws and their amendments (including PL 94-142 and PL 98-199). Their new name is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts.
More importantly, PL 101-476 replaced the word "handicapped" with the word "disabled" and therefore, expanded the services for these students. IDEA reaffirms PL 94-142's requirements of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) through an individualized education program (IEP) with related services and due process procedures. This act also supports the amendments to PL 94-142 that expanded the entitlement in all states to ages 3 to 21, designated assistive technology as a related service in IEPs, strengthened the laws commitment to greater inclusion in community schools (least restrictive placement), provided funding for infant and toddler early intervention programs, and required that by age 16 every student have explicitly written in the IEP a plan for transition to employment or post secondary education.
(1990) PL 101-496 The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act
This law promotes community acceptance and inclusion for all people with developmental disabilities. It also provides funds to state protection and advocacy agencies for disabled people.
(1990) PL 101-508 Child Care and Development Block Grant
PL 101-508, a part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA), focuses on the need for child care throughout the country. It emphasizes the need and encourages the inclusion of children with "special needs" in those child care programs, which are developed by the states as a result of the funds provided to each state that submits a comprehensive plan for child care.
(1992)PL 102-569 Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992
This law revises and expands the programs of PL 93-112. PL 102-569 includes provisions to ensure that the individuals's wishes are considered during the rehabilitation process, especially the writing of the individualized written rehabilitation plan (IWRP); the IWRP should include a statement about his/her involvement in developing the plan. This law defines what vocational services include (personal assistance, transition, and supported employment services) and who is eligible for these services (those with the most severe disabilities, and those who need intensive supported employment services to enter or retain employment). PL 102-569 also explains that the basis for the number of hours provided for individuals should be a maximum possible amount, and consider their strengths, resources, interests, and concerns.
(1997) PL 105-17 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
(1997) IDEA reauthorized
This amendment calls for students with disabilities to be included in on state and district-wide assessments. Also, Regular Education Teachers are now required to be a member of the IEP team.
(2001) No Child Left Behind is enacted.
There are several changes from the 1997 reauthorization. The biggest changes call for more accountability at the state and local levels, as more data on outcomes is required. Another notable change involves school districts providing adequate instruction and intervention for students to help keep them out of special education.
This law calls for all students, including students with disabilities, to be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014.
(2004) PL 108-446 IDEA 2004
Quality of personnel
IEP Standards (section 1400)
(2001) Cory H. Litigation
In May1992, attorneys filed a federal class action lawsuit (Corey H., et al. v. Chicago Board of Education and Illinois State Board of Education3) on behalf of the more than 40,000 students with disabilities then enrolled in the nearly 90% minority Chicago Public Schools. The lawsuit alleged violations of the least restrictive environment provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Ensuring that student placement decisions are based on individual needs rather than disability labels
Instituting comprehensive ISBE monitoring and enforcement of the LRE mandate in Chicago.
Essential in implementing these agreements is the appointment of a Court Monitor, who is charged with monitoring all aspects of implementation and assisting the parties in settling disputes, if possible, before taking them to the Court.
Illinois Professional Teaching Standards as well as the language arts and technology standards for all teachers
Proposed special education standards for all teachers are a part of this material.
Included is the requirement that that 10% of continuing professional development activities of non-special education teachers address the area of special education.
Teachers must engage in an activity that addresses adapting and modifying the general curriculum to meet the needs of students with disabilities.