# data[].attributes.body
May 17, 1954 - the day the US Supreme Court declared the "separate but equal" doctrine, otherwise known as 'Jim Crow' laws, unconstitutional. This was no easy feat for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). For years, the NAACP worked hard to challenge public school segregation laws. Lawsuits had been filed in Delaware, South Carolina, and Virginia. The most popular case, was the one filed in Kansas in 1951.

"Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, after his daughter, Linda Brown, was denied entrance to Topeka's all-white elementary schools" (History, 2022). Brown argued that segregated schools violated the 14th Amendment, which holds that no state can "deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

The US District Court in Kansas agreed with Oliver but upheld the doctrine. One year later, the four cases were brought to the Supreme Court, combined under the name Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. With great skill, determination, and time, the Court came to a unanimous decision to desegregate public schools. This was the basis of the Civil Rights Movement.

Resources -
1. Biography on Linda Brown (Oliver Brown's daughter): https://www.biography.com/activist/linda-brown
2. Educational Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBlqcAEv4nk (this video is much more detailed, has numerous visual supports/references, and provides strong background knowledge when/if trying to utilize with children)
3. Educational Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTGHLdr-iak
4. Article: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/
5. Article: https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brown v. Board of Education in PBS' The Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was the first piece of United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) students. It recognized the value of bilingual education and provided federal grants to school districts for the purpose of establishing educational programs for LESA students.

The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough who saw the need of the increasing number of Mexican immigrants in Texas and other southwestern states. The BEA was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968.

While the BEA addressed all linguistic minorities in the country, the passage of the act was spearheaded by Spanish speakers.

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bilingual-Education-Act

https://www.k12academics.com/Federal%20Education%20Legislation/bilingual-education-act

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTXnbIJ3yCM

# data[].attributes.body
Seven students in the District of Columbia school district sued the Board of Education for violating the 14th amendment and denying them the accommodations and materials they need to succeed in school.  The seven students had learning and physical disabilities and were denied access to public education because of accommodations they needed that the district claimed were too financially expensive to accommodate.  These students and their families could not financially afford to send them to private school, but they are entitled to a fully-funded public education at no cost to them under the 14th amendment.  The students won the case and got the accommodations they needed in the end.  The students were Peter Mills, Duane Blacksheare, George Liddell Jr., Steven Gaston, Michael Williams, Janice King, and Jerome James.  These seven students were representing 18,000 other students with disabilities in the D.C. area that were in the same situation.

References:
Best, S. (2011) Peter Mills v. DC Board of Education: The right to special education. Slideshare. https://www.slideshare.net/casandoval1/mills-v-dc-board-of-education-1972.

Stewart, D. (2020) The right to education. Disability Justice. https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-education/.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/348/866/2010674/.

# data[].attributes.headline
1973 Vocational Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

# data[].attributes.subject
1973 Vocational Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

# data[].attributes.body
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies, in programs receiving federal financial assistance, in federal employment and in the employment practices of federal contractors.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Those programs include public school districts, institutions of higher education, and other state and local education agencies.

Who qualifies:

To qualify under Section 504, a student must have a physical or mental impairment affecting a body system that substantially limits one or more major life activities, including walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, etc.

Who does the evaluation:

The school district must conduct an evaluation in a timely manner when a student needs or is believed to need services because of a disability. Decisions must be made by a group of school personnel who are knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the data, and the placement options.

If the child is eligible:

Section 504 requires a school district to provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to each eligible student in its jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. Under Section 504, an appropriate education for a student with a disability could consist of education in a regular classroom, education in a regular classroom with supplementary services, or special education and related services.

Reference
https://askearn.org/page/the-rehabilitation-act-of-1973-rehab-act

https://www.pacer.org/parent/504/?gclid=Cj0KCQiApL2QBhC8ARIsAGMm-KFO91_thEsdq7PfKmq4WvJq9Hw9Ti-EDbmdgBn7WoLSYw7lFYGaTg0aAtgCEALw_wcB
https://www.parentcenterhub.org/section504/#:~:text=Section%20504%20of%20the%20Rehabilitation%20Act%20of%201973%2C%20as%20amended,secondary%20schools%2C%20among%20other%20entities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 | Center for Parent Information and Resources

# data[].attributes.body
Amy Rowley was deaf student, but her school turned down her request for a sign language interpreter. The administration denied the Rowley’s request because they believed Amy was “achieving educationally, academically, and socially”. Such an act of the school drove her parents to file a lawsuit against her school for violating the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In this case, the District Court ruled that Amy was denied an appropriate education, as they determined that there is a gap between Amy’s current achievement and her potentials. However, the United States Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s ruled that the school is not responsible of helping children with disabilities to reach to their maximum potential if the education they are receiving is equal and adequate.

References:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/176/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH86tGVjXBM

# data[].attributes.body
In 1970s the school were deciding on how they should categorize who to send to special education classes, and they decided to adopt racist and biased intelligence tests that specifically targeted African American students. Five African American students in the San Francisco Unified School District filed the lawsuit in 1984 as they were placed in “educable mentally retarded” (EMR) classes.The District Court ruled in favor of the students, deciding that these IQ tests violate the Equal Rights and Protection Acts under the 14th amendment; hence, these IQ tests were prohibited to be use to place African American children in special education classes.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viF3aRM13LI

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/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Larry P. versus Riles Court Case - EDUC823

# data[].attributes.headline
1989 - Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
1989 - Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education

# data[].attributes.body
The Case:

Parents of 6-year-old Daniel R. R. went to court as they believed their local school district in El Paso, Texas did not comply with EHA (1975) by allowing him to remain in a general education class with students who did not have disabilities.

Daniel had down-syndrome and struggled with speech impairments.

Daniel's parents wanted to place him half-time at an early childhood special-ed class, and half-time at a regular general education Pre-K program. Daniel's school district complied and modified his IEP, but it soon became clear the child had severe difficulties in the mainstream classroom (e.g., requiring constant 1 on 1 attention, difficulty mastering skills, etc.). The school district decided to change Daniel's placement, putting him only in the Special-ed class but allowing him to have lunch and recess with students without disabilities.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the school district's decision, rejecting the parents' appeal. However, they did note that schools should do everything in their power (e.g., curriculum adjustments, supports, supplementary aids) before moving students to a special-ed, less inclusive program. They also proposed a two-part test that evaluated whether the schools had done their maximum to help the child integrate into and succeed in mainstream programs.

Significance/Impact:

This was a landmark case that examined the principle of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which posits that students with disabilities have the right to be in academic and extracurricular programs of general education classrooms, to the maximum appropriate exposure.

Schools should only remove children from such programs if they are not able to be educated satisfactorily in general ed. classrooms with appropriate accommodations and support.

This case provided a further basis for the IDEA (1990), which continued to promote the idea that education should not be "all or nothing," and that schools should provide a continuum of services as well as the maximum amount of appropriate exposure to students with disabilities.

References:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/874/1036/382507/
https://www.k12academics.com/Federal%20Education%20Legislation/Individuals%20with%20Disabilities%20Education%20Act/Six%20Pillars%20of%20IDEA/Least%20

# data[].attributes.headline
1990 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) And ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Amendments Act)

# data[].attributes.subject
1990 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) And ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Amendments Act)

# data[].attributes.body
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990. It is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. The aim of the law is to protect people with disabilities and makes sure they have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. This law consists 5 titles, in which Title II is on Public Services: State and Local Government, emphasizes the followings:

Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by “public entities” such as state and local government agencies.

Requires public entities to make their programs, services, and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Outlines requirements for self-evaluation and planning; makes reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination; identifies architectural barriers; and communicates effectively with people with hearing, vision, and speech disabilities.

On September 25, 2008, the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADA Amendments Act" or "Act"). The Act emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require extensive analysis.

The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term "disability" by rejecting the holdings in several Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC's ADA regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for individuals seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

References:
https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA-overview
https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/americans-disabilities-act-amendments-act-2008

# data[].attributes.headline
1990 Reauthorization and renaming of the law: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 1997 Amendments to this law 

# data[].attributes.subject
1990 Reauthorization and renaming of the law: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and 1997 Amendments to this law 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66g6TbJbs2g
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ensures that all children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. It was originally called The Education for All Handicapped Children Act.

The four purposes of IDEA: To ensure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

IDEA is composed of six main elements that illuminate its main points. These six elements are: Individualized Education Program (IEP); Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE); Least Restrictive Environment (LRE); Appropriate Evaluation; Parent and Teacher Participation; and Procedural Safeguards.

Reauthorizations: The 1990 reauthorization (Public Law 110-476) changed the law’s name from EHA to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. It also added traumatic brain injury and autism as new disability categories. Additionally, Congress mandated that as a part of a student’s individualized education program (IEP), an individual transition plan (ITP) must be developed to help the student transition to post-secondary life.

The 1997 (Public Law 105-17) reauthorization articulated a new challenge to improve results for children with disabilities and their families. This included an emphasis on access to the general curriculum. Additionally, states were given the authority to expand the “developmental delay” definition to also include students up to age nine. The law also required parents be provided an opportunity to attempt to resolve disputes with schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) through mediation and provided a process for doing so.

Facts and Figures: Of student with disabilities ages 14 through 21 who were known to have left school in the 1994-95 school year:

52% graduated with a regular diploma,

63% graduated with a regular diploma or certificate of completion, and

34% dropped out.

Outcome after implementation of IDEA:

The proficient in reading and math for students with disabilities have not changed a lot after 25 years. Most of the students with disabilities receive classes in general classrooms.

In the future, educators will increasingly use the power of technology to help students with disabilities.

References

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History#1980s-90s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Explained

# data[].attributes.headline
1975 (and earlier) Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142)

# data[].attributes.subject
1975 (and earlier) Education of All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142)

# data[].attributes.body
This act passed by congress in 1975 is a hallmark of pertaining free public education for children with disabilities. This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education and one free meal a day for children with physical and mental disabilities. Public schools were required to evaluate children with disabilities and create an educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational experience of non-disabled students.
Before the act, many students with special needs had not been evaluated or identified. For instance, a student with a learning disability might just struggle through school, failing classes and never getting help. The law mandates that school districts put into place a program that allows them to identify and evaluate students who might need extra help and that they identify and evaluate students without discrimination. They might also be shuffled off to special schools or put in special classrooms. They might never interact with students who were not special needs students, and this could have a negative impact on their academics and self-esteem. The act required that schools provide students with the least restrictive environment, or the closest to the regular classroom as possible while still meeting the child's needs.

references:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XMndYNEGFA

https://specialednews.com/special-education-dictionary/eha-education-for-all-handicapped-children-act/

https://commons.trincoll.edu/edreform/2012/05/the-education-for-all-handicapped-children-act-a-faltering-step-towards-integration/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: History and Summary

# data[].attributes.body
This act was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, and represents good news for our nation’s schools. This bipartisan measure reauthorizes the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s national education law and longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students.
Today, high school graduation rates are at all-time highs. Dropout rates are at historic lows. And more students are going to college than ever before. These achievements provide a firm foundation for further work to expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA.

References:
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Every Student Succeeds Act: 5 Things You Need to Know

# data[].attributes.headline
2004 Reauthorization of IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) – RTI and other aspects

# data[].attributes.subject
2004 Reauthorization of IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) – RTI and other aspects

# data[].attributes.body
In 2004, the IDEA reauthorization aligned the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requirements, which called for:

early intervening services for children not currently identified as needing special education but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment;

reduced misdiagnosis of students with learning disabilities (LD);

greater accountability and improved educational outcomes;

raised standards for instructors who teach special education classes.

IDEIA requires schools to use the Response to Intervention (RTI) model in the process of assisting students with learning difficulties, or determining eligibility for special education. RTI focuses on providing more effective instruction by encouraging earlier intervention for students experiencing difficulty learning. The assumption is that this will prevent some students from being identified as LD by providing intervention as concerns emerge.

References:

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History#2000s-10s

https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/ideareathztn.asp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Response to Intervention: A Tiered Approach to Instructing All Students

# data[].attributes.headline
Disability Integration Act of 2019 (and preceding 2009 Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Disability Integration Act of 2019 (and preceding 2009 Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.)

# data[].attributes.body
This bill prohibits government entities and insurance providers from denying community-based services to individuals with disabilities that require long-term service or support that would enable such individuals to live in the community and lead an independent life.

The Disability Integration Act is a bicameral and bipartisan legislation that ensures people with disabilities have a right to live and receive services in their own homes. The DIA further secures our Constitutionally protected right to liberty by preventing disabled people from being forced into costly institutional settings by unnecessary government regulations. The DIA (S. 117/H.R. 555) in the 116th, introduced on January 15th in honor of the 90th birthday of the great civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), creates a comprehensive solution, assuring the full integration of disabled people in the community by:

  clarifying that every individual who is eligible for LTSS has a federally protected right to a real choice in how they receive services and supports
  assuring that states and other LTSS insurance providers deliver services in a manner that allows disabled individuals to live in the most integrated setting, have maximum control over their services and supports, and lead an independent life
  articulates the right to live in the community without creating unnecessary or wasteful Government programs; States have broad latitude to determine how they
will secure that right
  establishing a comprehensive planning requirement that includes enforceable benchmarks
  requiring public entities to address the need for affordable, accessible, integrated housing that is independent of service delivery

References:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/117
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/555
http://www.disabilityintegrationact.org/fact-sheet/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Part II: Disability Integration Act of 2019

# data[].attributes.headline
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.subject
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act

# data[].attributes.body
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was proposed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. President Johnson was devoted to ending poverty and racism, so this act was created to provide equal access to education for all students. The comprehensive bill granted funding to primary and secondary schools with the goal of improving school standards and accountability. The funds were designated for resources that improve the quality of education including new instructional materials, professional development training, and opportunities to increase parental involvement.

The ESEA is made up of a variety of subdivisions including Title I. Over 80% of the authorized ESEA funds go to Title I as it disperses funding to low-income school districts. Its main focus was to eliminate the learning gap from children living in low-income households and children living in middle class households. Every five years to follow, the bill was reauthorized in which many adjustments and amendments were implemented.

References:
1. YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/4okt6u6OEkg
2. Article: Social Welfare History Project Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (vcu.edu)
3. Article: Microsoft Word - ESEA.docx (netdna-cdn.com)