# data[].attributes.body
This court case stated that separate is NOT equal, when in reference to black vs. white students in schools. What many do not realize, is that this landmark case also opened the door for discussions regarding special needs students vs. general education students. This led to groups formed to inform the people about the lack of inclusivity within special education programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Council for Exceptional Children is an organization that is considered the first advocacy group for children with disabilities. The group came around in 1922 out of New York City at Columbia University. CEC is one of the largest special education advocacy groups. The main objective of CEC is to ensure that children with special needs receives FAPE.

The National Association for Retarted Citizens was created in 1950. NARC was formed by twenty-three individual advocacy groups that believed in one thing, so they joined forces to be more influential. During the passing of IDEA, there were over 200,000 members. NARC helps with litigation and seeing that critical precedents through judicial process is met.

This landmark court case overturned the Plessy v. Fergusen case saying that "Separate is NOT equal". This court case brought to attention not only black v. white in the schools, but also special needs students v. normal students. With this case, many advocacy groups were formed to help inform the nation of the problem with the US special education programs.

This act allows protection from discrimination against special needs and disabilities. This law is considered the first law put into place giving protection to students with special needs. This law includes FAPE and LRE. A student is eligible when they have a mental or physical disability that deters their learning ability.

The PL 94-142- The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was placed into law. Special education advocacy groups rejoiced this day because that's when President Ford signed this into law. This is the most important piece of legislation signed because it secured a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.

This landmark case designed the Rowley Two-Part test in determining whether or not FAPE is being met according to the student's IEP. The two part test consists of the questions " has the school complied with the procedures of IDEA" and "is the IEP, developed through the procedures of the Act, reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit." If the two questions are answered correct, then FAPE and IDEA has been met.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990 by President George W. Bush. This act guarentees that people with special needs have the same rights as others in all places. This included school and work. This act also ruled that people with special needs would not be discriminated against in the school, workforce, or everyday society such as public transportation.

The individuals with disabilities education act was signed into law almost thirty years after PL 94-142 by President George W. Bush. The concept of IDEA was first brought to the senate table by Iowa's own Tom Harkin in 1989. This law included 6 pillars: FAPE, LRE, IEP, evaluation, parent/student participation, and procedural safeguards for all participants. This law also included 4 sections, A-D.

No Child Left Behind was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. This law calls for all students to be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014. This law has been seen both negatively and positively. Some states are even partitioning to opt out of NCLB. Schools are supposed to report their scores for the AYP, some have been proven to have cheated, while others are honest on whether or not their school district is proficient or not.

IDEA 2004 was signed into law by President George W. Bush. This reauthorization of IDEA made many changes to the original IDEA. The changes included the IEP, due process, and student discipline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 important events concerning Special Education timeline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Council for Exceptional Children is an organization that is considered the first advocacy group for children with disabilities. The group came around in 1922 out of New York City at Columbia University. CEC is one of the largest special education advocacy groups.

# data[].attributes.headline
August 12, 1957: Minnesota school district requires special education

# data[].attributes.subject
August 12, 1957: Minnesota school district requires special education

# data[].attributes.body
Special Instruction for Handicapped Children of School Age was passed in Minnesota in 1957 and required that special education was to be provided to children with disabilities. This made Minnesota one of the first states to pass a law requiring special education in the schools and created a movement to provide special education in other states, as well. Prior to this law, children with disabilities did not attend school, they stayed home or were institutionalized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June 2013

In 1957, Minnesota became one of the first states in the nation to pass a law requiring that special education services be provided to children and youth with disabilities. The law, Special Instruction for Handicapped Children of School Age (MN Statutes 1957 131.081), sparked a movement that impacted landmark legislation for similar special education services in other states. That movement ultimately resulted in the passage of the federal Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) in 1975, which required special education be provided in all public schools in the U.S.

Dr. Evelyn Neva Deno (1911-2005), former supervisor for special education in Minneapolis Public Schools, and later a Professor in Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota, was instrumental in the creation of special education services in the state during the 1950s and 1960s. In her later years she compiled an amazing collection of personal stories from those who were involved in creating the 1957 Minnesota special education law. This collection is a historical treasure that has been overlooked for years, and now will be organized into a published anthology for the public by a new project at the Institute on Community Integration (ICI).

Before 1957, many Minnesota schools did not provide any education services to most children with disabilities. These children were often institutionalized or stayed home. The 1957 law was ground-breaking, requiring public schools statewide to establish special education programs for children with many types of disabilities who were “educable.”

Among the 400-plus pages of stories collected by Dr. Deno are those about the creation of services leading up to the 1957 Minnesota law. They include stories on:

Michael Dowling, the Dowling School, and Marshall High School services for “handicapped students” in Minneapolis.

The work of the 1950s Legislative Commission, by former Gov. Elmer Anderson (1909-2004), Rep. Wayne Bassett (1915-1988), and Dr. Maynard Reynolds (1922-2012).

The first state Department of Education Office of Special Education, by those involved.

The creation of services on learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and vision, especially in the Minneapolis schools.

The creation of PACER Center and parent advocacy in general, by involved parents.

“Since Dr. Deno’s anthology is the only known documentation of these stories, and many of the storytellers have passed away, preparing this anthology for publication is an opportunity to ensure this piece of history will be preserved and made available to anyone who is interested,” says project consultant Norena Hale.

ICI is working with the Minnesota Historical Society to prepare, publish, and distribute the anthology, which is expected to be released in 2014. This project, which is directed by David R. Johnson, is funded by a $7,000 Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage Grant through the Minnesota Historical Society. For further information, contact Norena Hale at norenahale@gmail.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FYI Article: ICI Preparing Book on Minnesota's Landmark 1957 Special Education Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 2013 In 1957, Minnesota became one of the first states in the nation to pass a law requiring that special education services be provided to children and youth with disabilities. The law, Special Instruction for Handicapped Children of School Age (MN Statutes 1957 131.081), sparked a movement that impacted landmark legislation for similar special education services in other states.

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Samuel B. Kirk created the model of learning disabilities and based on the work he did, the Headstart program was funded and authorized. Headstart provides education, health, and social services to low income preschoolers, and also helps provide resources to parents and children who might possibly have an IEP and/or learning disability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Founded in 1905, the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is renowned for its groundbreaking research, the preparation of leaders in the field of education, and its worldwide impact.
College Highlights

Education at Illinois has been home to major influences and firsts in the field of education:

School of Education is founded in 1905 as one of the first land-grant, researched-based schools of education.

1920: College organizes the "First Annual School Superintendents Meeting," which was intended to bridge ties between practitioners and university faculty.

1948: Professor Lee J. Cronbach develops the most frequently used measure of the reliability of a psychological or educational test called "Cronbach's alpha."

1950: College faculty members become leaders in the field of special education. Early publications by Samuel B. Kirk, Merle B. Karnes, and Winifred D. Kirk reach an international audience.

1951: Professor Max Beberman founds "new mathematics," a method of teaching math that went beyond the usual rote learning.

1963: Dr. Samuel B. Kirk created the paradigm of "learning disabilities," a common term used today. Based on his work federal legislation was passed that authorized the Head Start program, which provides educational, health, and social services to underprivileged preschoolers.

1964: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation (CIRCE) was created as a service and research agency within the College and University. CIRCE brings together outstanding researchers within the College and worldwide, with an educational evaluation focus that is shared with more than a hundred university centers, school districts, government centers, and for-profit research corporations.

1969: Lilian Katz co-founds the Illinois Association for the Education of Young Children, also serving as the organization's first president. Katz also served as the director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, now known as the Early Childhood and Parenting Collaborative, for more than 30 years.

1976: College becomes the coordinating center for the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement Second International Mathematics Study. The study was one of the largest empirical investigations of comparative mathematics ever.

1976: With the guidance of Professor Richard Anderson and the U.S. Department of Education, College establishes the Center for the Study of Reading, with the goal of addressing high numbers of school children who were failing to learn how to read.

2005: The Goldstick Initiative for the Study of Communication Disorders is established. The endowment helps bridge communication gaps between special-needs children and their families, and it funds an annual lecture and doctoral fellowship.

College is home to the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, the only organization that surveys the landscape of higher education learning outcomes nationally.

2008: Youth Literature Festival (YLF) established to celebrate the value of reading in the lives of youth. In 2014, YLF authors visited more than 70 schools and libraries in Champaign County and in five nearby counties, sharing their work and insights at assemblies, book discussions, readings, and writing workshops.

1M+ students have benefited from the pioneering research of Illinois' Dr. Samuel Kirk in the field of special education.
History of the College of Education at the University of Illinois

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Founded in 1905, the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is renowned for its groundbreaking research, the preparation of leaders in the field of education, and its worldwide impact. Education at Illinois has been home to major influences and firsts in the field of education: School of Education is founded in 1905 as one of the first land-grant, researched-based schools of education.

# data[].attributes.body
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed in 1965. This allows federal funding for primary and secondary education and a national curriculum, while holding schools accountable and increasing educational equality. This Act covered low income families, homeless, and families who spoke minimal English. ESEA was able to improve schools and give these families access to more resources. Schools that demonstrated needs received more funding, in hopes that test scores and the quality of education for students would increase. Title VI of the Act was allocated to handicapped children, and programs that would help strengthen the education these children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was a Great Society program enacted in 1965 that allocates federal funding for primary and secondary school education and forbs the establishment of a national curriculum. This Act also provided a mechanism to hold schools accountable and increase equality in education nationally. The current reauthorization of this bill is the No Child Left Behind Act, which was signed into law in 2001.

Who is covered under this Act?

The children of low-income families, particularly rural, Native American, neglected, migrant, homeless and English language limited families are the primary target of the provisions of this bill. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act aims to provide for their long-term welfare by improving their schools and the resources available to them. In 1965, when this Act became law, there was a large "achievement gap" stratified by race and poverty. The provisions of this act aims especially to close the gap by setting benchmarks and goals to measure the progress of students.

What is a Title I designation?

As per the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide federal funding to schools in need, Title I of the Act provides the necessary provisions to allocate this funding. A school with more than 40% of its students classified as low income by the US government qualifies for Title 1 designation. The purpose of this funding is to increase test scores and encourage academic development so that these children may have the means to escape poverty. The school must demonstrate a willingness to work on improving the quality of education available to its students. Title I grants go typically to elementary school children in both public and parochial schools between grades 1 to 6. This funding, which represents the growing prominence of the federal government in formerly the state-local matter of education, enables the federal government to at times, dictate policy, with the threat of withholding future funding.

Keeping the Title I designation is heavily dependent on the progress of the students and subsequent reauthorizations, especially the No Child Left Behind Act have increased the power of the federal government in schools, by way of the power of purse strings and the disbursement of the continued aid vital to keeping the school running. Since the establishment of the Title I designation funding for these schools has increased from 2 billion to 25 billion, reflecting the growing number of schools under the influence of federal mandates. The federal government then sets provisions and guidelines that schools must follow to retain federal funding. The most common indicator (and most controversial) of school progress is the performance of students on reading and math standardized testing. Schools that fail to meet federal expectations are subject to lose their funding. No Child Left Behind, for example, mandated that all students reach their appropriate grade level in reading and math by 2014. For some schools, that is an onerous burden.

What are the other provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965?

- Title II of the Act provides federal funding stocking school libraries and the purchase of textbooks or other instructional materials

- Title III funs supplementary educational centers to provide students with greater options for educational improvements and remedial aid. It also funded educational programming and other ancillary programs to supplement student learning outside of school.

- Title IV provides funding for collegiate research into improving training and instruction in all schools

- Title V strengthens the authority of State Departments of Education and allocates funding. Specifically, this compels the State authority to support local reform efforts while pursuing reforms of its own. Additionally, the federal government provides specific grants for foreign language, gifted student and arts programs.

- Title VI is an amendment that extends provisions to handicapped children, in consort with other Great Society programs to help the disabled.

What does Title VII provide for?

An early amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was Title VII that provided for federal funding to bilingual education and specialized programs for the advancement of Native Hawaiians, Alaskans and Native Americans. The most important legacy of the Bilingual Education Act as the establishment of separate bilingual classes for English Language Limited students, acknowledging that educating them alongside proficient students was detrimental to their long term development and education. The bilingual educational program prepared these students to join their English speaking peers as soon as possible by preparing them to succeed in the classroom. It is not meant to be a separate form of education, but a remedial practice to prepare students for the regular educational system. This also meant that putting students in these classes was not "segregation" which had been outlawed a few years prior. Subsequent amendments to the Bilingual Education Act outlined specific goals for programs and clarified the need for these programs to overcome language barriers. In the current revision of the Act, this title was incorporated as Title III "Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students."

What are the criticisms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?

Prior to this act becoming law, the federal government has very little involvement in education, opting to leave it as a state and local matter. This Act changed that and despite provisions against a national curriculum, set national standards for achievement. This did not account for the time it would take very impoverished and low achieving schools to catch up with their peers. A lesser known provision of the bill allows military recruiters access to the personal information of 11th and 12th graders for the purposes of poaching students to join the armed forces.

What are the subsequent reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965?

Subsequent reauthorizations of the Act have provided new provisions for Drug Free Schools, modernization of school facilities, charters schools and immigrant education funding.

- Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981

- Improving America's Schools Act of 1994

- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

No Child Left Behind is due for a revision/reauthorization and many of the controversial provisions are likely to become optional or amended out of the bill. The 2014 goals to have every child achieve grade level are almost certain to be scrapped.

Original text of the Act:

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elementary and Secondary Education Act - Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was a Great Society program enacted in 1965 that allocates federal funding for primary and secondary school education and forbs the establishment of a national curriculum.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mills vs. Board of Education of District of Columbia

# data[].attributes.subject
Mills vs. Board of Education of District of Columbia

# data[].attributes.body
In 1972, it was ruled that even if the child and family can not afford an education, the child can not be denied one because of "mental, behavioral, physical, or emotional handicaps of deficiencies". This was groundbreaking because the judge said that even if the funds are not present, they need to be expended that way no child is excluded from a public education regardless of the resources or needs that the student requires.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court found that "separate facilities are inherently unequal." Congress has subsequently regarded Brown as equally important in prohibiting segregation on the basis of disability. This decision influenced future disability legislation, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al . was a landmark decision by a Federal District Court that affirmed the right of children with disabilities to a free public education and certain due process procedural safeguards. This case was significant in that it challenged the very existence of institutions.

Mills v. Board of Education was similar to, and supported and expanded the Pennsylvania case. Mills held that no child could be denied a public education because of "mental, behavioral, physical, or emotional handicaps or deficiencies." During the trial, an exchange took place between the judge and representatives of the District of Columbia. The state apparently agreed that all children should be educated and classes established as soon as Congress appropriated the funds. In response, the judge said, "If sufficient funds are not available to finance all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in the system then the available funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a publicly supported education consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom. The inadequacies of the District of Columbia public school system, whether occasioned by insufficient funding or administrative inefficiency, certainly cannot be permitted to bear more heavily on the exceptional or handicapped child than on the normal child."

Dr. Gunnar Dybwad made the following observation about Mills: "Every so often we hear, 'We will take care of the disabled when we find some money'. No, they have the right to the good and the bad with all of us."

In Wyatt v. Stickney, a Federal District Court held that individuals who are mentally ill or mentally retarded have a constitutional right to treatment in the least restrictive setting necessary.

In 1970, the guardian of Ricky Wyatt initiated a class action suit against the Alabama Department of Mental Hygiene, alleging failure of the state to provide proper treatment at the Partlow State School and Hospital. The decree, issued by the Court, stipulated that all community resources must first be explored before admission to an institution is considered, no individual should remain in a residential facility longer than necessary, and no person should be returned to the community indiscriminately. The decree included a 20-page appendix that defined minimum treatment standards that the state the judgment would be carried out.

The intent was clear that an institution should only be used as a last resort and only if the individual's needs can be met. Wyatt helped to pave the way for deinstitutionalization and gave greater visibility to the potential impact of the legal system on improving the lives of people with disabilities.

New York State Association for Retarded Citizens et al. v. Carey et al., a class action brought against the state of New York in 1972, alleged multiple violations at the Willowbrook State School and Hospital on Staten Island. At the beginning of this lawsuit, Willowbrook housed 5,200 people and was 65% over the rated bed capacity. Allegations included:

1. Most residents were confined for unspecified periods, usually until they recovered.

2. Residents who should have been released were not.

3. No habilitation was occurring to justify the confinement of residents.

4. There was no individual habilitation plan for residents.

5. There were no periodic evaluations of residents to assess their progress and redefine their goals and programs.

6. There were no educational programs provided for residents.

7. Services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy were inadequate, if available at all.

8. The facility was overcrowded.

9. The residents had no privacy, and regulations to protect them from theft of personal property were nonexistent.

10. The residents were not protected against assault and injury, either by other residents or staff.

11. Experimentation was practiced on residents.

12. Residents were not given adequate clothing.

13. The diet was inadequate, and the meals were rushed.

14. The facility was dirty.

15. Toilet facilities were not adequate to accommodate the institutional population.

16. Residents were segregated from those of the opposite sex.

17. Many residents were confined to beds or chairs, or kept in solitary confinement.

18. Many residents were denied privileges on the grounds of the institution and practically no one was given a pass.

19. Residents were not given help in reading, writing, or posting mail.

20. Non-English speaking residents had difficulty communicating.

21. Residents were not compensated for work performed.

22. The facility was understaffed with professionals and paraprofessionals. The absence of proper supervision contributed to the death of some residents, where the cause of death was attributed to aspiration of food or vomit.

23. Medical facilities were inadequate.

24. Many of the professional staff were shown to be incompetent.

After three years, a consent decree was approved by the Court. The decree called for a major upgrading of the facility's programs, recognition of the residents' rights, and a ten-year phase down of the residential population to no more than 250 individuals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The Minnesota Governor's Council on Devlopmental Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parallels In Time | A History of Developmental Disabilities | Part One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court found that "separate facilities are inherently unequal." Congress has subsequently regarded Brown as equally important in prohibiting segregation on the basis of disability. This decision influenced future disability legislation, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

# data[].attributes.body
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was enacted by Congress in 1975 in order to help states protect the rights and meet the needs of infants and children with disabilities. This also protected the children's families as well. This later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Since the law was first passed in 1975, more children have been able to receive an education in their neighborhood school, rather than being sent elsewhere.  After the reauthorization in 1990, TBI and autism were added as disability categories. Congress also made that an individual transition plan must be created along with an individualized education program, to help with transition. Another main takeaway from IDEA is the right children with disabilities have to a free and public education (FAPE). This education is to be given in the least restrictive environment (LRE).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A A A

Before the EHA's enactment, the fate of many individuals with disabilities was likely dim. Many individuals lived in state institutions for persons with intellectual disabilities or mental illness. Many of these restrictive settings provided only minimal food, clothing, and shelter, and persons with disabilities were often merely accommodated rather than assessed, educated and rehabilitated.

Further, most families were not afforded the opportunity to take part in planning or placement decisions regarding their child, and resources were not available to enable children with significant disabilities to live at home and receive an education at neighborhood schools in their community.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government, with the strong support and advocacy of family associations, began to develop and validate practices for children with disabilities and their families. These practices laid the foundation for implementing effective programs and services of early intervention and special education in states and localities across the country.

Early federal legislation supported improved programs and services. Notable examples included:

the Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 (Public Law 86-158), which helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation*;

the Captioned Films Acts of 1958 (Public Law 85-905), the training provisions for teachers of students with mental retardation* (Public Law 85-926), and 1961 (Public Law 87-715), which supported the production and distribution of accessible films;

the Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-276), which trained instructional personnel for children who were deaf or hard of hearing;

the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 (Public Law 88-164) expanded previous specific training programs to include training across all disability areas;

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10) and the State Schools Act (Public Law 89-313) provided states with direct grant assistance to help educate children with disabilities; and

the Handicapped Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-538) and the Economic Opportunities Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-424) authorized support for, respectively, exemplary early childhood programs and increased Head Start enrollment for young children with disabilities.

Landmark court decisions further advanced increased educational opportunities for children with disabilities. For example, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) established the responsibility of states and localities to educate children with disabilities.

* A 2017 revision reflected changes made to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by Rosa's Law, which replaces references to "mental retardation" in Federal law with "intellectual disability" or "intellectual disabilities."

On November 29, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Education for All Handicapped Children Act ( Public Law 94-142), or the EHA. The EHA guaranteed a free, appropriate public education, or FAPE, to each child with a disability in every state and locality across the country.

The four purposes of the EHA were:

to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them...a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs,

to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents...are protected,

to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities, and

to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities.

The law authorized financial incentives to enable states and localities to comply with the EHA.

The EHA was a response to Congressional concern for two groups of children: the more than 1 million children with disabilities excluded entirely from the education system and the children with disabilities who had only limited access to the education system and were therefore denied an appropriate education. This latter group comprised more than half of all children with disabilities who were living in the U.S. at that time.

Facts and Figures

In the 1976-77 school year, 3,694,000 students aged 3 through 21 were served under the EHA.

To achieve the national goals for access to education for all children with disabilities, several special issues and special populations required federal attention. Key amendments to the law in the 1980s and 1990s reflected these national concerns.

Reauthorizations

The 1986 reauthorization (Public Law 99-457) addressed early intervention and mandated that individual states provide services to families of children born with disabilities from the time they are born. Previously, these services were not available until a child reached the age of three.

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.

Birth Through Age 2

The 1980s saw a national concern for young children with disabilities and their families. While the EHA mandated programs and services for children 3 to 21 years that were consistent with state law, the 1986 amendments to the EHA mandated that states provide programs and services from birth.

These early intervention and preschool programs prepared young children with disabilities to meet the academic and social challenges that lie ahead of them, both while in school and in later life.

Facts and Figures

In the 1980-81 school year, 4,144,000 students aged 3 through 21 were served under EHA. By the 1990-91 school year, 4,710,000 infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities from birth through age 21 were served under IDEA.

Ages 3 Through 21

The 1980s and 1990s saw a push to expand the opportunities for educating children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. For example, in the early 1980s, EHA supported several "Severely Handicapped Institutes" to develop and validate effective approaches for integrating children with significant disabilities with their non-disabled family members at home and their non-disabled classmates at school.

Model projects' efforts led the way for millions of children with significant disabilities to attend their neighborhood schools and learn the life skills needed for full, active participation in integrated activities with their family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers.

Additionally, in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed for the first time, what is meant by a free appropriate public education under EHA. In Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. Of Ed. v. Rowley, the Supreme Court concluded that to meet its obligation to provide FAPE, the school district must provide access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit to the child with a disability. In 2017, the Court revisited the question of what level of educational benefit the school district must confer on children with disabilities to provide FAPE, as noted in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1 (2017) below.

The law has also supported the preparation of students for vocational success through new and improved transition programs.

The law's 1983 amendments ( Public Law 98-199), 1990 amendments ( Public Law 101-476) and 1997 amendments ( Public Law 105-17) supported initiatives for transition services from high school to adult living.

Because of these mandates, each transition-aged student's IEP must include transition plans or procedures for:

Identifying appropriate employment and other postschool adult living objectives for the student;

Referring the student to appropriate community agencies; and

Linking the student to available community resources, including job placement and other follow-up services.

The IEP must also specifically designate who is responsible for each transition activity.

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.

In 2004, the IDEA reauthorization aligned the IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act requirements.

The 2004 reauthorization 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,

Greater accountability and improved educational outcomes, and

Raised standards for instructors who teach special education classes.

The 2000s and 2010s saw revised regulations to the IDEA. The department issued these periodic revisions to address the implementation and interpretation of the IDEA.

In August 2006, the department issued regulations necessitated by the 2004 reauthorization. The 2006 IDEA regulations required schools to use research-based interventions in the process of assisting students with learning difficulties or determining eligibility for special education. The 2006 regulations also addressed other new requirements included in the 2004 reauthorization, such as:

The resolution process required when a parent files a due process complaint, and

Shifting the responsibility to provide equitable services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities to the local educational agency (LEA) in which the private school is located.

In 2008, the department issued regulations it determined were needed to clarify and strengthen effective implementation and administration of IDEA programs. These IDEA regulations addressed:

Parental consent for continued special education and related services;

Non-attorney representation in due process hearings;

State monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement;

Allocation of funds; and

Positive efforts to employ and advance in employment individuals with disabilities.

Both 2011 and 2013 regulations included clarifications or revisions to the IDEA for infants and toddlers with disabilities programs. Additionally, the 2013 regulations revised the parental consent requirements related to a child's or parent's public benefits and ensured parent of children with disabilities are specifically informed of all their legal protections when public agencies seek access to public benefits or insurance to pay for services required under the IDEA.

The 2015 revisions revised regulations governing the requirement that LEAs maintain fiscal effort; removed the authority for states to define modified academic achievement standards and develop alternate assessments based in those modified academic achievement standards or eligible students with disabilities.

The department revised the regulations in 2016 with the goal of promoting equity under IDEA. The revised regulations help ensure that states meaningfully identify LEAs with significant disproportionality and that states assist LEAs in ensuring that children with disabilities are properly identified for services, receive necessary services in the least restrictive environment.

The 2016 revised regulation also helps ensure children with disabilities are not disproportionately removed from their educational placements by disciplinary removals. The changes were necessary to address the well-documented and detrimental over-identification of certain students for special education services, with particular concern that over-identification results in children being placed in more restrictive environments and not taught to challenging academic standards.

Notably, a 2017 revision reflected changes made to the IDEA by Rosa's Law, which replaces references to "mental retardation" in Federal law with "intellectual disability" or "intellectual disabilities." Other 2017 revisions removed and revised IDEA definitions based on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA).

In March 2017, the Supreme Court ruled on a landmark case that defines the scope of FAPE requirements under IDEA. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1, the Supreme Court determined that "[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." The Court additionally emphasized the requirement that "every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives."

Facts and Figures

Birth Through Age 2

In 2005-06, 299,048 infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2 were served under IDEA, Part C. By 2018-19, 409,315 infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2 were served under IDEA, Part C.

Ages 3 Through 21

In the 2018-19 school year, 7,130,238 students with disabilities from 3 through 21 were served under IDEA, Part B.

In the 2017-18 school year, 72.7% of students with disabilities, age 14-21, exiting school graduated with a regular high school diploma and 16% dropped out.

Educators/Service Providers

In the 2005-06 school year, 695,466 teachers and related service personnel were employed to serve students age 3 through 21. By the 2017-18 school year, 942,446 teachers and related service personnel were employed to serve students age 3 through 21.

Families

From the beginning of special education legislation, families of children with disabilities have been considered important partners in meeting the needs of children with disabilities.

IDEA includes key principles to guide families and professionals to work together to enhance the educational opportunities for their children.

IDEA requires active parent participation throughout the educational process including the development of the child's IEP.

IDEA 1997 amendments mandated that schools report progress to parents of children with disabilities as frequently as they report to parents of non-disabled children. The intent was to maintain an equal and respectful partnership between schools and families.

Educators and Service Providers

IDEA has continued the long-standing federal commitment to provide an adequate supply of qualified teachers.

Today, hundreds of thousands of professionals specializing in early childhood and special education are being trained with IDEA support. These professionals include early intervention staff, classroom teachers, therapists, counselors, psychologists, program administrators, and other professionals who will work with future generations of children with disabilities and their families.

IDEA has supported states and localities in meeting their identified challenges for personnel preparation.

For example, IDEA has supported local communities who were developing and implementing early childhood programs; schools serving students with low-incidence disabilities, such as children who are blind or deaf or children with autism or traumatic brain injury; and schools in rural or large urban areas, where financial and other resources are often scarce.

State Lead Agencies, State Educational Agencies, and Local Educational Agencies

The IDEA requires states and other public agencies to implement programs designed to improve results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families.

Additionally, the IDEA allows for the award of annual formula grants to states to support early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, and the provision of special education and related services to preschool children ages three through five, and children and youth with disabilities

Discretionary Grant Recipients

IDEA discretionary grants award grants through a competitive process to state educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations to support technical assistance and dissemination, technology and media services, state personnel development grants, personnel preparation, state data collections, and parent-training and information centers.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. "History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA."

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, selected years, 1979 through 2019.

U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW): "IDEA Part B Personnel Collection" 2011-12 to 2017-18. Data from 2011 includes US and Outlying areas data from 2012 - 2017 includes the US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States.

U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW): "IDEA Part B Exiting Collection," selected years, 1996 through 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A History of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now the IDEA, in 1975 to support states and localities in protecting the rights of, meeting the individual needs of, and improving the results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families.

# data[].attributes.headline
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley 

# data[].attributes.subject
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District vs. Rowley 

# data[].attributes.body
In 1982, the US Supreme Court decided that IDEA allotted for the instruction and services provided to children to benefit educationally from instruction they received. This court case showed the importance of children receiving a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The case also gave the schools the right to determine what is needed to meet students with disabilities needs. Amy Rowley, a deaf student, was denied an interpreter because the school administrators decided she could succeed in school without one, but her parents said that was a violation of EAHCA. The Supreme Court decided that even though Amy Rowley was doing well in school, she was not doing as well as she could if she had a sign language interpreter.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1988, according to the US Supreme Court, a California school board violated IDEA (formerly known as EAHCA), because they suspended a student indefinitely for disruptive behavior that was attributed to their disability. The court decided the state must provide direct services to students when the school board is lacking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Honig v. Doe, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 20, 1988, ruled (6-2) that a California school board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA; later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) when it indefinitely suspended a student for violent and disruptive behaviour that was related to his disability. In addition, the court affirmed that the state must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local school boards fail to do so.

The case centred on two disabled students in the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). One, identified as "John Doe" in court documents, was an emotionally disturbed 17-year-old who had difficulty controlling his impulses and anger. In November 1980 he responded to the taunts of a peer by choking the student and then kicked out a window as he was being taken to the principal's office. Doe was initially suspended for five days, but the SFUSD Student Placement Committee (SPC) subsequently notified his mother that it was recommending his expulsion and that his suspension would continue until the expulsion process was finished.

Doe, who qualified for special educational services under the EAHCA, filed suit, alleging that their disciplinary actions violated the so-called "stay-put" provision of the act; Bill Honig, the state superintendent of public instruction, was named as a respondent. Under the provision, children with disabilities must remain in their current educational placements during any review proceedings unless parents and educational officials agree otherwise. Doe alleged that the pending expulsion proceedings triggered the "stay-put" provision and that educators violated his rights in suspending him indefinitely. As such, a federal district court granted Doe's request for a preliminary injunction ordering school officials to return him to his existing educational placement pending a review of his individualized educational program (IEP).

The second student in the case, "Jack Smith," was also an emotionally disturbed EAHCA-eligible student in the SFUSD. Smith typically reacted to stress by becoming verbally hostile and aggressive. When he was in middle school, his disruptive behaviour escalated. He stole, extorted money from other classmates, and made sexual comments to female students. In November 1980 Smith was suspended for five days for inappropriate remarks. As with Doe, the SPC recommended Smith's expulsion, scheduled a hearing, and extended the suspension until the proceedings were completed. It was later agreed that Smith would be homeschooled. After learning of Doe's case, Smith protested the school's actions and eventually joined in Doe's suit.

Noting that the two students had a right to "a free appropriate public education," the district court entered a permanent injunction barring officials of the SFUSD from suspending any students with disabilities from school for more than five days when their misconduct was disability-related. The district was also prohibited from changing a student's placement during any EAHCA proceedings-unless the parents consented-and from approving any unilateral placements. Further, the court ordered the state to provide services directly to eligible students if the local educational agency failed to do so. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed these orders with slight modifications; notably, it allowed for suspensions of more than 10 days.

Honig sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the Ninth Circuit neglected to consider the decisions of other circuits that acknowledged a "dangerousness exception" to the "stay-put" provision. In addition, he charged that the trial court's order directing the state to provide direct services when local educational agencies failed to do so imposed an onerous burden on the state.

On November 9, 1987, the case was argued before the Supreme Court. Turning to the first of the issues, the court decided that the case was moot with regard to Doe because he had passed the EAHCA's eligibility age of 21. However, since Smith still was eligible under the EAHCA, the court reviewed the rest of the claim. In regard to the "dangerous exception" issue, the court did not believe that Congress had allowed for such a provision when creating the EAHCA and refused to rewrite the statute to include it. Reviewing the act's legislative purpose, the court found that it was clear that Congress wanted "to strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students, particularly emotionally disturbed students, from school." At the same time, the court pointed out that educators were not without options when dealing with potentially dangerous students. For instance, the court noted that educators may use any of a variety of procedures when responding to dangerous students, such as study carrels, time-outs, detention, restriction of privileges, or suspensions for up to 10 days. The court indicated that 10-day suspensions are designed to serve as

a "cooling down" period during which officials can initiate IEP review and seek to persuade the child's parents to agree to an interim placement. And in those cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child adamantly refuse to permit any change in placement, the 10-day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke the aid of the courts...to grant any appropriate relief.

Although the "stay-put" provision created a presumption in favour of leaving children in their existing educational placements, school officials are entitled to seek injunctive relief to exclude students when the interests of maintaining safe learning environments outweigh the dangerous child's right to receive a free and appropriate public education.

Lastly, the Supreme Court affirmed that the state must provide services directly to students with disabilities when local boards fail to make them available. The Ninth Circuit decision was largely upheld, though the Supreme Court ruled that suspensions of more than 10 days were not permissible. (At the time of the ruling, the Supreme Court had only eight justices.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Honig v. Doe | US Supreme Court Case, Education Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Honig v. Doe, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 20, 1988, ruled (6-2) that a California school board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA; later the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) when it indefinitely suspended a student for violent and

# data[].attributes.body
No Child Left Behind was used as the main K-12 general education law from 2002-2015, where it became ESSA, or Every Student Succeeds Act. The purpose of this was to hold schools accountable for the achievement of the children, while penalizing schools that did not show improvement. Prior to NCLB, children who received special education were excluded from general education and state testing. NCLB was to provide equal educational opportunities to students receiving special education, students in poverty, students of color, and students who spoke and understood limited/no English. In 2015, NCLB became ESSA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a glance

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the main law for K-12 general education in the United States from 2002-2015.

The law held schools accountable for how kids learned and achieved.

The law was controversial in part because it penalized schools that didn't show improvement.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was in effect from 2002-2015. It updated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The law applied to all K-12 public schools in the United States.

Before NCLB, many schools didn't focus on the progress of disadvantaged students. For example, kids who got special education services were often shut out of general education. They were also left out of state tests.

The goal of NCLB was to provide more education opportunities for students. It focused on four key groups:

Students in poverty

Students of color

Students receiving special education services

Those who speak and understand limited or no English

Unlike previous versions of ESEA, NCLB held schools accountable for how kids learn and achieve. It did this through annual testing, reporting, improvement targets, and penalties for schools. These changes made NCLB controversial, but they also forced schools to focus on disadvantaged kids.

About the author

About the author

Andrew M.I. Lee, JD is an editor and attorney who strives to help people understand complex legal, education, and parenting issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was an education law in effect from 2002-2015. Learn what NCLB covered, like school accountability, and why NCLB was controversial.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2015, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The name change was followed by reauthorization. Some provisions include increasing access to high quality preschools, holding expectations and accountability to effect change in schools where no progress is being made, and providing important information to students, educators, and families to measure students progress. ESSA allowed for state-developed unique plans to close achievement gaps, increase equity, and strengthen the quality of education, leading to increased outcomes for all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education