# data[].attributes.body
Students with disabilities were often excluded from public schools or placed in segregated institutions.

Schools were not legally required to educate children with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Case Background

Thirteen families in Topeka, Kansas challenged racial segregation in public schools.

Argued that “separate but equal” (from Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896) was inherently unequal in education.

Supreme Court Decision

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision.

Segregation in public schools was declared unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Core Finding

“Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Segregation harmed children’s sense of self-worth and denied them equal opportunities.

Impact on Education

Landmark civil rights case that dismantled legal segregation in schools.

Laid the foundation for later rulings and legislation ensuring equity—not just for race, but also for students with disabilities.

Influenced later cases like PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. DC (1972), which extended equal access arguments to children with disabilities.

Connection to SPED

Established the principle that all students are entitled to equal educational opportunity.

Provided the legal and philosophical groundwork for special education legislation (like the 1975 EAHCA/IDEA).

# data[].attributes.headline
Parent Advocacy & Early Cases (1960s–1970s)

# data[].attributes.subject
Parent Advocacy & Early Cases (1960s–1970s)

# data[].attributes.body
Parents began organizing to demand rights for their children.

PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971): Guaranteed education for children with intellectual disabilities.

Mills v. Board of Education (1972): Extended the right to education to all children with disabilities, regardless of type or severity.

PARC v. Pennsylvania (1971) – Key Points

Case Background

Filed by the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) on behalf of children with intellectual disabilities.

At the time, Pennsylvania law allowed schools to deny education to children who had not reached a “mental age” of 5 by the start of first grade.

Many children with disabilities were excluded entirely from public education.

2. Court Decision

The case was settled in 1971 by consent decree (agreement before a full trial).

The ruling required Pennsylvania schools to:

Provide free public education to all children with intellectual disabilities ages 6–21.

Offer early intervention programs for children younger than 6.

Schools could no longer deny services based on intellectual functioning.

3. Core Findings

Education is a right, not a privilege.

Students with disabilities cannot be excluded; they must be provided with an education tailored to their needs.

Parents must be involved in decisions about their child’s education.

4. Impact on Special Education

One of the first major legal victories securing the right to education for children with disabilities.

Paved the way for Mills v. DC (1972) and later the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) (now IDEA).

Set the precedent for FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) and parental involvement.

# data[].attributes.body
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA, Public Law 94-142):

Guaranteed Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Required Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).

Introduced the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) principle.

This was the first comprehensive federal special education law.

# data[].attributes.body
Section 504 & Civil Rights (1973)

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: Prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving federal funding.

Extended protections beyond schools (e.g., employment, access to public programs).

# data[].attributes.headline
1896: First Public School Special Education Class

# data[].attributes.subject
1896: First Public School Special Education Class

# data[].attributes.body
Expansion & Reauthorization (1990s–2000s)

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990): Broader civil rights law protecting individuals with disabilities in all public and private spaces.

IDEA (1990, renamed from EAHCA): Added categories like autism and TBI; strengthened transition planning.

Reauthorizations in 1997, 2004 further emphasized inclusion, accountability, and alignment with general education.

# data[].attributes.headline
1990: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1990: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.body
IDEA reauthorized and renamed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, expanding services and emphasizing person-first language. The law added autism and traumatic brain injury as disability categories and strengthened transition services for students moving from school to adult life. IDEA introduced the concept of assistive technology services and emphasized the importance of preparing students with disabilities for employment and independent living.

# data[].attributes.body
NCLB required states to include students with disabilities in accountability systems and standardized testing. While controversial, this law ensured that the academic progress of students with disabilities was measured and reported, bringing attention to achievement gaps. The law required schools to demonstrate adequate yearly progress for all student subgroups, including students with disabilities, leading to increased focus on academic outcomes rather than just compliance with procedural requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA aligned special education law with NCLB requirements and introduced significant changes including response to intervention (RTI) models, reduced paperwork requirements, and emphasis on scientifically-based instruction. The law allowed schools to use RTI approaches to identify students with learning disabilities and required special education teachers to be highly qualified in core academic subjects they teach.

# data[].attributes.body
Integration of MTSS, RTI, UDL, and inclusive practices.

Emphasis on equity, culturally responsive teaching, and access to general education curriculum.

Continued conversations around disproportionality, discipline, and ensuring meaningful inclusion.