# data[].attributes.body
Declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.

Set the precedent for equal access to education, later influencing special education rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
1971 – Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.subject
1971 – Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.body
Guaranteed education for children with intellectual disabilities.

Recognized that exclusion from public education was unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.headline
1972 – Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

# data[].attributes.subject
1972 – Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

# data[].attributes.body
Extended PARC’s reasoning to all children with disabilities.

Required schools to provide due process and free education to students with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.headline
1975 – Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)

# data[].attributes.subject
1975 – Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)

# data[].attributes.body
Federal law mandating FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).

Later renamed IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

# data[].attributes.headline
1982 – Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

# data[].attributes.subject
1982 – Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley

# data[].attributes.body
First U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting EAHCA.

Held that schools must provide "some educational benefit," but not necessarily the best or maximum services.

# data[].attributes.headline
1983 – Garrett v. Board of Education of the School District of Detroit

# data[].attributes.subject
1983 – Garrett v. Board of Education of the School District of Detroit

# data[].attributes.body
Addressed whether students with disabilities were entitled to services even if they had behavior or discipline issues.

Affirmed that students cannot be denied special education due to misconduct stemming from their disability.

# data[].attributes.body
Ruled that schools cannot expel students for behaviors related to their disability without due process.

Strengthened protections for students with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Reauthorization and renaming of EAHCA.

Expanded services and emphasized transition planning and assistive technology.

# data[].attributes.headline
1999 – Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

# data[].attributes.subject
1999 – Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

# data[].attributes.body
Schools must provide health services needed for students to attend school, as long as not requiring a physician.

# data[].attributes.headline
2017 – Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

# data[].attributes.subject
2017 – Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District

# data[].attributes.body
Raised the standard for what constitutes “educational benefit” under IDEA.

Required IEPs to be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

# data[].attributes.body
Garrett v. Board of Education of the School District of Detroit (1983)

During the early 1980s, public schools were still adapting to the requirements of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, which mandated a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. However, many school districts were resistant to serving students whose disabilities manifested in behavioral challenges or disciplinary issues.

Garrett vs. Board of Education of the School District of Detroit (1983) centered on a student with a disability whose behavioral problems led the school district to deny him special education services. The district argued that his conduct issues disqualified him from receiving services. The court ultimately ruled that students with disabilities cannot be denied special education and related services based on behavior problems, especially when those behaviors are related to their disabilities. This case was pivotal because it affirmed that discipline issues do not negate a student’s right to appropriate educational services.

This case had significant effects on the lives of students with disabilities, families, schools, and society as a whole. It reinforced students’ rights to remain in school and receive services, even when they exhibit difficult or disruptive behavior due to their disability. For families, it empowered them to advocate for behavioral and emotional support services as part of their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). In schools and society, it challenged the tendency to exclude or punish students with disabilities without addressing the root cause. This root cause was (and still is) often a lack of proper support. It helped shift the conversation toward inclusion and understanding, rather than exclusion and punishment. The ruling influenced broader attitudes toward disability rights, reinforcing that equity in education includes students with emotional and behavioral disabilities.

Garrett vs. Board of Education of the School District of Detroit (1983) laid groundwork for future legal protections by establishing that behavioral issues cannot be used as a reason to exclude students from special education, especially when those behaviors are related to their disability. It also laid the groundwork for the need for schools to implement behavioral interventions and support plans as part of FAPE.

This case also helped set the stage for Honig v. Doe (1988), a U.S. Supreme Court case that built upon the principles in this case, ruling that students with disabilities cannot be expelled for behavior related to their disability without proper due process. It also helped get the ball rolling on the growing emphasis on Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs), later required under amendments to IDEA in the decades following.

This timeline outlines this specific case, as well as other prominent cases in the world of special education law.