# data[].attributes.body
The compulsory attendance laws hold parents accountable for students not attending school. Local school authorities pushed for these laws because it was apparent that children living in poverty would miss a significant amount of school compared to their counterparts. According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), chronic absenteeism is becoming a challenge for students with disabilities. NCEO states that students with disabilities are 1.5 times more likely to miss elementary and high school days. This had a massive effect on students with disabilities because those with chronic health impairments may not be capable of getting to school consistently.

The Civil Rights Act is one of the most significant legal acts in American history. This act was a catalyst for many other cases like PARC Vs. Commonwealth of PA and Mills Vs. BOE. Once President Johnson signed the deed, segregation in schools and public places, discrimination used of public facilities, and discrimination based on race, color, and religion were now illegal. This act also promoted equal voting rights that terminate the previous policy of fulfilling some requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Brown V. BOE banned separate but equal for both black and SPED students

# data[].attributes.body
This case is the catalyst to the changes we see in education today! The plaintiffs believed that "separate but equal" was damaging children's educational experience, opportunities and rights of equal protection under the 14th amendment. Even though this case was originally defending rights of minorities in America, student advocates also claimed that that this was applicable to students with disabilities as well. The law states that it is unconstitutional to separate or deny educational opportunities to students based on unalterable characteristics including race and disabilities.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and segregation became illegal.  Almost 20 years after Brown V. BOE, there were two cases that were inspired by Brown :PARC V. Commonwealth of PA (1971) and Mill  V. BOE (1971).

# data[].attributes.body
The Civil Rights Act is one of the most significant legal acts in American history. This act was a catalyst for many other cases like PARC Vs. Commonwealth of PA and Mills Vs. BOE. Once President Johnson signed the deed, segregation in schools and public places, discrimination used of public facilities, and discrimination based on race, color, and religion were now illegal. This act also promoted equal voting rights that terminate the previous policy of fulfilling some requirements.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965)

# data[].attributes.body
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was an act signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson to ensure that education was the "first national goal." The president believed that if children in poverty were educated, they could be more successful, and this act would help them. This act also provided aid to schools to assist them in starting educational programs for children in poverty. These schools were referred to as Title I schools and were determined by the percentage of low-income students or students subject to failure.

# data[].attributes.body
The Plaintiffs in this case argued that students with disabilities weren't receiving an equal educational opportunity. They believed the that the state was being neglectful because they were not providing a publicly supported education and this went against the 14th amendment. They were 4 main concerns that the plaintiffs wanted to address: programing (education) that benefits students with disabilities, establishing that life skills are apart of educational learning, making it illegal to deny students with disabilities access to education and, making all programs/training accessible to pre-k. This case is important because it protects SPED students rights and gives them the right to access general education.

This case was settled  by decree stating that students from ages 6 to 21 would have access to free public education in a general education classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs, in this case, are five Black students who were placed in a special education classroom based on their scores on a test for educable mental retardation. They claimed their placement in the special education program was ill-informed because the test given to these students was racially biased and culturally inappropriate. The court ruled that the IQ test was inappropriate for black students, making using the test for placement purposes illegal. The court also ruled that all students who were placed in special education classes due to this test should be retested to ensure that they are in the correct learning environment. States were encouraged to monitor the misplacement of students and terminate them when identified.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs, in this case, were all students with disabilities that weren't in school; the initial plaintiffs were seven students, representing more than 18,000 others. They argued that the BOE was going against the 14th amendment by segregating students with disabilities. They believed the amendment protected their right to access free and public education (FAPE) and being denied this right goes against the "withholding privileges" and the "denial of life and liberty" sections of the amendment.

The court decreed that because segregation based on race was unconstitutional, so was the exclusion of folks with disabilities. They also ruled that the BOE was to provide procedural safeguards to students and families and provide a publicly supported education.

# data[].attributes.body
This act protects qualified individuals with disabilities and extends the rights of protection from the civil rights act stating that discrimination based on disability is illegal. It also states that these individuals have the right to equal opportunity of employment, services and programs.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975) and Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975) and Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
Both acts ensured all children with disabilities have access to free public education, any supplemental aids, and related services that are needed. The Americans with Disabilities Act also protects those rights and the right to access local and state government.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs in this case were both students and their parents who believed that their children were regressing from having too much time off during summer break. For this purpose, Armstrong along with the Andersons, Bernards and Battles wanted to extend the school year. The defendants, Secretary of Education (Kline) and several other school districts argued that regression happens when students are not actively practicing their skills throughout the summer break and lack of teacher componence.

In June of 1979, the court sided with the plaintiffs stating that the 180 school year goes against having a "free and appropriate education". New regulations were then added to the IDEA; it states that all students with disabilities be considered annually for ESY.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs in this case were Rowley family where both  parents and child were deaf; they argued that their daughter, Ann, needed a sign language interpreter to maximize her educational experience by receiving all information provided. They claimed that without an interpreter, Ann was only receiving 60% of content during instructional hours. With an interpreter, she could be receiving 100%. They believed that she was being hindered academically instead of lifted up to reach her full potential. The defendants were the Hendrick Hudson School and they believe it was unnecessary to obtain an interpreter due to the current supports she's been receiving which were speech, hearing aid, and tutoring.

Justice William Rehnquist stated that the district neglected the meaning of "free appropriate public education" and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Irving Independence School District V. Tatro (1984)

# data[].attributes.subject
Irving Independence School District V. Tatro (1984)

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiff in this case was Amber Tatro and she had a primary disability of Spina Bifita. Spina Bifida caused Amber to have multiple health issues that affected her daily living skills including a bladder condition requiring a catheter. The catheter also needs to be changed a few times per day. Irving Independence School District did create a specific program for Amber, however, the district refused to provide assistance. Due to their refusal, the Tatro family filed a suit stating that Irving Independence School District are not in compliance with the EAHCA. The Tatro family claimed that according to the EACHA, schools that are federally funded are required to provide related services which also includes medical services.

The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs (the Tatros) because it was found that CIC (Clean Intermittent Catheterization) is not a medical procedure but a related service because a medical professional does not have to administer the Catheter change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Burlington School Committee v. DOE(1985)

# data[].attributes.subject
Burlington School Committee v. DOE(1985)

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs in this case were the Panico family and the child, Michael Panico, was defined as having a disability according to the EAHCA. The school he was attending wasn't equip to tend to his needs so a new IEP was made to initiate the move to another school. Michael attended a private school that was an appropriate learning environment, however, his parents had to pay for it out-of-pocket. This caused The Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) to ask city to pay for Michael Panico's tuition. Furthermore, because the EAHCA allows placement in private schools, the city was found responsible to pay for Michael tuition and only agreed to the payments after threats were made to freeze their accounts.

This case created additional procedural safeguards for parents, including the right to reimbursement for placement in a private. This only applies if it's decided that it's the least restrictive environment.

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiffs in this case are anonymous but the first plaintiff is referred to as John Doe, a 17 year old male, whose disability consist of physical aggression and impulsive behaviors. The other, John Smith, believed to middle school age, disability consist of verbally berating of others and aggressive behaviors. Both students were suspended from school for five days or more with Doe eventually being expelled. Both parties claimed that the "stay put" section of the EAHCA was violated; Smith claimed that his rights were violated when the school extended the suspension while proceedings were continued. Doe filed suit against Bill Honig because he claimed that the during proceedings his rights were violated because he was expelled before other options were discussed with his parents.

The court decreed that schools can no longer suspend or expel students for behaviors that are uncontrollable due to the student's disabilities. They also ruled that students cannot change educational settings during proceedings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education(1989)

# data[].attributes.subject
Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education(1989)

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiff, in this case, was a six-year-old named Daniel with Down syndrome and other disabilities including a speech delay. Daniel was integrated into a general education pre-k class after being in a special education program with a half-day schedule. This was done per his parents' request. Daniel faced many challenges in general education including difficulty mastering the basic skills that were being taught. Daniel also needed a lot of individual attention which was a challenging task for the teacher. The school then came to the conclusion that maybe Daniel will do better in the special education program, however, he will have the opportunity to eat lunch and have recess with the general education students.
Daniel's parents disagreed with the new placement and took their case to court. The court decreed that the school was in compliance with the IDEA because they attempted to mainstream the student into general education by allowing participation in lunch and recess. The court also said that in order for the school to accommodate Daniel, they would have to make too many alterations to the curriculum which is not a requirement according to the IDEA.

Ultimately this resulted in a two-part test to see what placement is the least restricted environment (LRE). This test is the foundation for future testing of the LRE.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975) and Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975) and Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
Both acts ensured all children with disabilities have access to free public education, any supplemental aids, and related services that are needed. The Americans with Disabilities Act also protects those rights and the right to access local and state government.

# data[].attributes.body
This plaintiffs, in this case, is an eight-year-old boy named Rafael Oberti who had Down's Syndrome. When he was to enter kindergarten, a test performed by the district suggested that he would be better served in a separate environment. Due to the parents' refusal, he was placed in general education in the morning and a special education program in the afternoons. It also states that he was making some progress using this schedule but his behavior was a challenge. The school then suggested that Rafael be put in special education full time but his parents refused again.

Eventually both parties agreed on the placement in a special education program as long as the school attempts to mainstream his education. In addition, the parents believed this placement would lead to his future placement in general education. The school, unfortunately, had no intention on mainstreaming or placing Rafael  in general education. In the second due process hearing, the courts believed that the services being provided to Rafael could be implemented in a general education classroom via related services. They also created another test with improvements to determine the least restrictive environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland(1994)

# data[].attributes.subject
Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland(1994)

# data[].attributes.body
The plaintiff in this case was Rachael Holland, an 11-year-old girl with an intellectual disability. The Hollands wanted to switch Rachael from special education classroom to general education full time. The school, however, didn't agree with the decision and suggested that Rachael be included in non-academic activities like lunch and recess. The Hollands, after requesting a due process hearing, placed Rachael in a private school and said that her placement in general education was beneficial. The courts ruled that schools need to show multiple failed attempts at mainstreaming before suggesting removal to another school.

# data[].attributes.body
No Child Left Behind is an act that placed a huge amount of pressure on both teachers and students to achieve high test scores in Math and Reading. The acts intention was to help student achievement and close educational gaps nationwide. Instead, the act added a lot of stress to educators, administrators and students because it required students to succeed. The act was amended and renamed the Every Student Succeeds Act or ESSA; this act eliminated many of the demands in NCLB including the high test scores and the qualifications for teachers.

# data[].attributes.body
This act protects the rights of all children with disabilities ensuring they all receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), supplementary aids and related services as needed. Children from 3-21 are eligible to receive any service and from birth to 2 years, children can also receive early intervention services. It ensured children are placed in the least restrictive environment and access to the general education curriculum.

# data[].attributes.body
Brademas, J. (1975, July 29). H.R.7217 - 94th Congress (1975-1976): Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Www.congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/house-bill/7217

Cortiella, Esq., C., & Boundy, Esq., K. (2018). Chronic absenteeism is gaining attention as states begin implementation of new statewide accountability systems under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Students with Disabilities & Chronic Absenteeism. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOBrief15.pdf

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). Civil Rights Act | Summary, Facts, & History·    Brown v. Board of Education, PARC v. Commonwealth of PA, Armstrong v. Kline, Hendrick Hudson School v. Rowley, Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, Burlington School Committee v. DOE, Honig v. Doe, Danny R.R. v. State Board of Education, Board of Education in Sacramento CA v. Holland, Mills v. Board of Education, Oberti v. Board of Education, Larry P. v. Riles,Civil Rights Act (1964); The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), The Rehabilitation Act-504 (1973), The Education for All handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142) (1975), Americans with Disabilities Act (1990); No Child Left Behind (2001); and IDEA Amendment (2004) ,. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Civil-Rights-Act-United-States-1964

Gruenhagen, K., & Ross, S. (1995). Least Restrictive Environment and Case Law: What the Courts Are Saying about Inclusion. Annual International Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED386005.pdf

U. S. D. O. E. (2007, August 16). About the IDEA. Https://Sites.ed.gov/. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/#IDEA-History

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). YOUR RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT What Is Section 504? https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf

Yell, M. (2019). The law and special education. Pearson