# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This photo is taken at Morton High School in Miss. West's English class before Brown Vs. Board of Education (National Archives at Philadelphia,1951).

# data[].attributes.body
Plaintiffs espoused the view that compulsory education provided in a segregated manner was too restrictive and oppressive, and that the result of this segregation was a denial of opportunity and equality. The supreme court upheld the plaintiffs argument when it articulated the "separate is never equal" (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson, with childhood schoolteacher, Ms. Kate Deadrich Loney, prepares to sign ESEA into law.(Photo: Frank Wolf, courtesy of LBJ Library 1965)

# data[].attributes.body
The first federal legislation considered as a statutory base for EAHCA is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA was the original federal commitment to improving education for elementary and secondary-age students identified as "educationally disadvantaged", a group of students having diverse educational needs, which also included children with disabilities.  (Murdrick, 2014). ESEA was renamed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002, then Every Student Succeed (ESSA) 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion and subsequent holding in Hobson expanded the basic issue beyond that of physical exclusion from public school. The students were included in public schools; however as a result of "biased" assessments using group test that were standardized primarily on white middle-class students , the black students were inaccurately labeled. The courts ordered the school districts to discontinue this practice or placement (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Diana VS The Board of Education (Navarro, 2019)

# data[].attributes.body
In 1970 the issue of the use of standardized test to classify minority students was specifically addressed when a suit was filed on behalf of nine Mexican-American students who had been assigned to special education classes is California. This case resulted in an act insuring "non-biased" testing (Murdrick, 2014). The attatched video explains the Diana case in depth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Special Education Case Law Series  Part 6: Mills vs Board of Education (Carlie, 2020)

# data[].attributes.body
In Mills the plaintiffs children labeled as "exceptional" brought a class action suit against the District of Columbia on behalf of students who had been labeled as having behavioral problems, or being intellectually disabled, emotionally disturbed, and/or hyperactive. these children were often excluded, suspended, expelled, resigned and transferred from public schools without due process of law. This litigation ended in a consent decree that extended the rights for special education guaranteed in PARC (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education Case Law Series  Part 6: Mills vs Board of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Digital Storytelling: PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Fichter, 2012)

# data[].attributes.headline
1972 PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

# data[].attributes.subject
1972 PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

# data[].attributes.body
This case resulted in a consent decree that enjoined the State of Pennsylvania from denying educational opportunities to children with intellectual disabilities who reside in the state (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Storytelling: PARC vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
(California Speech Language Hearing Association, 2019)

# data[].attributes.body
This case was similar to Diana's (1970), but it focused on an African American student. The plaintiffs stated that the special education assessments were biased and subsequent placement was discriminatory because both used intelligence test as the basis for decisions. In Larry P. the basis for discrimination was not the language difference of the test but that the test had not been validated on an appropriate population. The result of the biased evaluation caused disproportionate numbers of African Americans in special education classes. Courts directed the state to retest all students in special education programs and to provide appropriate compensatory education (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 included a section considered to to be the first piece of civil rights legislation specifically providing guarantees of rights to persons with disabilities (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1974 (EHA) affected almost all aspects of education because they directed the states to develop state plans providing full educational opportunities to students with disabilities. Also EHA required that procedural safeguards be used to protect children during identification and placement procedures (Murdrick ,2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Explained (Avalla, 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) combined a bill of rights for children with disabilities with federal funding for the increased educational responsibility placed on the states to fully educate these children. All children with disabilities were granted free public education and related services designed to meet their need. Their rights as well as their parents rights were protected (Murdrick, 2014). EAHCA was later named IDEA in 1990 and IDEIA in 2004.

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

# data[].attributes.body
This case was one of the largest ESY case in which students were denied ESY services that they needed to prevent skill regression. The issues in this case were "what is an appropriate education", under the Act, and does the 180 day rule interfere with its provision (Murdrick, 2014). The attatched video goes in depth about ESY and how parents can prevent academic regression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
People with disabilities fighting for their rights. Courtesy of Tom Olin, photographer 2021

# data[].attributes.body
After passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, congress continued to intact various pieces of legislation to expand protections for persons with disabilities, their families, and others that these statutes were too fragmented and too limited to provide adequate protection. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to address these concerns (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
In Raymond S. v. Ramirez, parents sought reimbursement for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE), that was not requested by the school district, but that was used by the school district in the child's program development. In this case, the parents had submitted the cost of the IEE to their insurance carrier ,which not only paid the majority of the cost but also reduced the available lifetime benefits of their policy. When the school district refused to pay for the non requested IEE, the parents brought suit. The court held that the parents were entitles to reimbursement because their health insurance policy had a lifetime cap (Murdrick, 2014).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This Picture displays various assistive technology devices(Melissa 2021).

# data[].attributes.body
The Assistive Technology act was created in 1998 and refined in 2004 with intentions on raising awareness of, and access to, assistive technology (AT). AT comes in various forms of devices and services. The Act seeks to provide AT to people with disabilities of all ages, so they can equally participate in education, employment, and daily activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Rosa Marcellino, 9, second from left, is shown with siblings during the Special Olympics games. Rosa has Down syndrome and is the inspiration behind “Rosa law's

# data[].attributes.body
In 2010, President Obama signed the bill S.2781 into federal law. The term "mental retardation" and any of its other renditions has been changed in all pieces of federal legislation. The correct terminology is now "intellectual disability" (Murdrick, 2014).

Picture (special Olympics.org 2021)