347 U.S. 483 - Although not specifically pertaining to persons with disabilities, this court case set the foundation for the determination that ALL students should have the opportunity to receive the same education and that separating students based on their characteristics was inherently unequal.
Before IDEA, only 1 in 5 students with a disability received an education, and many states had laws excluding students with disabilities from public education. Institutionalization was normal for persons with disabilities and families had very little input into planning or placement decisions affecting their children. In an early response to community advocacy, the federal government passed a series of laws funding initiatives to train teachers and make learning materials more accessible.
Public Law 85-905
Public Law 85-926
Public Law 86-158
Public Law 87-715
Public Law 87-26
Public Law 88-164
Public Law 89-10
Public Law 89-313
Public Law 90-538
334 F. Supp. 1257 - Established the standard that students with disabilities were entitled to a free public education. Even after the case and decree the organization was forced to again bring a suit seeking for the court to enforce compliance and accountability from the state of Pennsylvania with regard to the previous decree.
348 F. Supp. 866 - Referencing the "Brown v Board of Ed" case, Judge Waddy found that "exceptional" students had been denied a free public education "a right that must be made available on equal terms." The Class remained open so that the court could monitor compliance with the decree that all Class members be identified by the state and funding be made available for specialized education services and teachers. In 2000 the case was reopened and in 2001 the class was closed, due to the interpretation that no future person would have been eligible for a public education at that time.
Public Law 92-424
Public 94-142 - President Gerald Ford signed the act into law as a congressional response to address the continued inequities excluding and limiting the education of children with disabilities. The law provided funding but also increased oversight for states to provide a "free and appropriate public education" (FAPE) that was specialized to students unique needs. This law finally provided parents and students concrete protections for their right to an education nationwide.
In addition to continued amendments, the act showed its teeth as parents began to challenge school districts in court over their compliance with the law. In a series of high profile Supreme Court decisions the justices raised the standards for providing equal access to the curriculum and ensuring that students with disabilities are provided an IEP and FAPE that includes basic accommodations. In support of school districts, the rulings affirmed the right of education professionals to determine the level of accommodations a student requires to participate in public education. Finally, courts established that districts would be liable to reimburse parents who seek a private schooling if they have been denied a FAPE, but only if they have gone through the process of trying to resolve disputes through the steps outlined in the EHA.
458 U.S. 176 (1982) - The Supreme Court ruled that in providing a FAPE school districts have discretion as to the level of accommodations a student needs based on their professional experience. Additionally, the justices held that districts were not required to maximize the learning of students with disabilities but to provide the "basic floor of opportunity" for them to participate in the general education classroom. This decision set a precedent for districts to limit services provided to families to the bare minimum necessary for inclusion.
727 F.2d 809 - This Circuit court case was one of the first cases where a family sought reimbursement for private education fees due to a district failing to provide a FAPE. The circuit court ruled that offering home-study to a student who has previously been in a traditional school does not meet the standard of FAPE, but also cited the Rowley case in asserting that parents cannot seek reimbursement over disagreements about the quality of an IEP without first making a good faith effort to reach a compromise.
Public Law 98-199
468 U.S. 883 - The Supreme Court found that a FAPE had not been met because related services had not been provided. This case further clarified the difference between medical services and related services to define "related services" as any services required for a student to receive a public education without the assistance of a medical professional.
471 U.S. 359
Public Law 99-457
484 U.S. 305 - This Supreme Court case concerned the "Stay Put" provision of the EHA. District personnel believed that the provision should not apply to matters of suspension or expulsion, when the student is a danger to other students. The Justices held that the EHA clearly protects students whose behaviors are a result of their disability even when they could pose a danger to other students. Furthermore, congress has emphasized the importance of parental participation in the educational program of their children including placement. At a time when any aspect is in dispute it is imperative that the student remain in their current placement until the dispute is resolved.
853 F.2d 171
872 F.2d 954
14 F.3d 1398
Public Law 101-476 - Officially renamed the Law to "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" and created the provision that in addition to an IEP, districts create a transition plan or ITP for students to transition to post-secondary life.
995 F.2d 1204 - This case focused on the ability of districts to place students in the "least restrictive environment" and with their general education peers to the greatest extent possible with the assistance of supplemental aids and services. The court held that the district had not met their obligation and required them to adjust the IEP to comply with IDEA. However, just as in other cases, the court made sure not to dictate how compliance was achieved, acknowledging that the law and supreme court precedent had left those decisions to states, LEAs, and the IEP team.
510 U.S. 7
872 F. Supp. 1421
Public Law 105-17
172 F.3d 238
394 F.3d 634
The affects of IDEA have been tremendous. The initial EHA act and subsequent revisions have continued to provide clarity and oversight for the education of students with disabilities. In 2018 nearly 8 million students were educated under IDEA part B, and of those students 73% graduated with a regular high school diploma. Federal funding has incentivized state participation and created a way to reward compliance and accountability. While the courts have supported parents in mainstreaming their children, and rewarded them financially when their children's educational needs are met, they have emphasized the collaborative nature of the IEP and the expertise that districts and teachers have in determining the appropriate placement and accommodations for students. While IEPs and 504s can remain contentious, there are mediation steps in place to resolve disputes.
Public Law 108–446
546 U.S. 291 - The party challenging a school or districts decision holds the burden of proof. It is not enough to allege a FAPE has not been provided, but you must prove the level of accommodation offered was not sufficient to provide access to the student with disabilities.
550 U.S. 516 - This Supreme Court case established that parents could pursue a grievance under IDEA and seek federal relief apart from their child. In other words IDEA covers the parents of students as well as the students themselves.
513 F.3d 279
557 U.S. 230
Public Law 111-256 - For the first time required federal documents to use "people first" language, removing the term "mental retardation" and replacing it with "intellectual disability."
720 F.3d 1038
752 F.3d 145
580 US. _ - This Supreme Court case differentiated between seeking damages under IDEA and ADA. The Justices unanimously agreed that families could sue a district under ADA without first exhausting the process under IDEA. In instances where the education of a child is not at issue, parents can make a claim under ADA for a violation of their rights.
15 U.S 827 (2017) - This Supreme Court case raised the bar set by the Rowley case. Rather than allowing districts to design an IEP that merely gives a student access to a FAPE, the justices ruled that an IEP must assist a student in making "reasonable progress" based on their circumstances. In most cases this would result in the progression from one grade level to the next. Once again the court deferred the determination of reasonable progress to educators and administrators, arguing that the standard Douglas' parents had sought was higher than reasonable.
598 U.S _ - One of the most recent Supreme Court Decisions on IDEA, again resulted in the justices reiterating that a party can file a civil suit against a district under ADA without exhausting all remedies under IDEA.
We'd love to hear from you. Please send questions or feedback to the below email addresses.
Before contacting us, you may wish to visit our FAQs page which has lots of useful info on Tiki-Toki.
We can be contacted by email at: hello@tiki-toki.com.
You can also follow us on twitter at twitter.com/tiki_toki.
If you are having any problems with Tiki-Toki, please contact us as at: help@tiki-toki.com
Close