Legal Foundations of Special Education by Sam McClune

Board of Education v Rowley

mil02475 — 2025-09-02 23:11:24 UTC

The Rowley Case
1982
Provided federal money to schools to educate children with a learning disability.
Was the first Supreme court ruling on education for students with learning disabilities.
Benefitted the parents who do not have to pay extra for their children's education due to a learning disability.
Part of Free Appropriate Public Education because it set what schools had to provide for any child.

Daniel R.R. v State Board of Education

mil02475 — 2025-09-02 23:24:28 UTC

Daniel R.R. v State Board of Education
1989
The Supreme Court decided that Daniel R.R. in fact would need specialized education and could not be in the classes with the children without learning disabilities.
The court ruled in favor of the school and not the family for what educational plan best fit Daniel.
It does benefit Daniel in this case because he can get a better education in special education classes then he could in the classroom of kids without learning disabilities.
Least Restrictive Environment because Daniel was able to learn best inside of the class that best fit his needs.

PL 108-446

lmcclunecadspecialist — 2025-09-03 14:22:30 UTC

1. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA)

2. December 3, 2004

3. IDEIA significantly revised the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, significantly shifting the focus from procedure to tangible outcomes for students. It created a more specific definition for “Highly Qualified Teachers,” and allowed schools to use the Response to Intervention model as an alternative to the more traditional “discrepancy formula.”

4. IDEIA is unique for the way it shifted special education away from compliance to procedure to a more student focused approach.

5. IDEIA benefited students by creating accountability for their education and shifting the focus towards improving their academic outcomes. It also required Highly Qualified Teachers to assist students.

6. IDEIA reinforces the rights of students to a Free and Appropriate Public Education, requires peer reviewed research to be used in IEP development, requires students be placed in the Least Restrictive Environment, encourages parent participation, and creates standardization for Highly Qualified Teachers.

PL 107-110

lmcclunecadspecialist — 2025-09-03 14:48:10 UTC

1. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)

2. January 8, 2002

3. NCLB established a system which required states to hold their public schools accountable, mandated annual standardized testing, required Annual Yearly Progress, and expanded parental choice for students in failing schools.

4. NCLB is unique for its unprecedented federal regulation of public schools requiring that they demonstrate success through measurable academic progress.

5. NCLB was supposed to benefit students by closing academic gaps and holding schools accountable for the success of their students. It wound up having unintended consequences, ultimately hurting many students more than it helped.

6. NCLB expanded parental involvement and choice in regard to their child’s education.

Brown v Board of Education

lmcclunecadspecialist — 2025-09-03 17:42:57 UTC

1. Brown v Board of Education

2. May 17, 1954

3. The Brown v Board of Education ruling declared that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional which overruled the established “separate but equal” doctrine. It declared that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and that segregation was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Brown v Board was unique in that it was a unanimous decision declaring state-sponsored segregation unconstitutional. It was a landmark ruling forever changing the expectations for education in the United States.

5. Brown v Board benefited everyone, especially those of racial minorities, by declaring that they are deserving of adequate and fair education.

6. Brown v Board set the groundwork for Free and Appropriate Public Education to be implemented down the road.

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

lmcclunecadspecialist — 2025-09-03 18:00:53 UTC

1. PARC v Pennsylvania

2. July 20, 1982

3. PARC v Pennsylvania established the right to free and appropriate public education to all children with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. It overturned the state’s laws that allowed for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities to be denied education if they had not met a certain “mental age.”

4. PARC v Pennsylvania was unique because it was the first right-to-education lawsuit in the country.

5. This ruling benefited both the children with disabilities and the families of said children as it gave them the opportunity to get an education and learn alongside their peers. It gave parents a chance to help their children thrive.

6. This ruling established the “zero-reject” principle and was an imperative step in the creation of a "free appropriate public education" and placement in the "least restrictive environment."

Special Education Law: PL 94-142

kelseyberger14 — 2025-09-03 18:44:06 UTC

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975
November 29, 1975
This act accomplished universal access to public education for all children with disabilities by requiring Free Appropriate Public Education. This landmark legislation transformed special education by dramatically increasing school attendance for students with disabilities and guaranteeing them access to educational opportunities previously denied to them.
It is unique because it was the first law to mandate free and appropriate public education for all eligible children with disabilities, providing a legal foundation for special education that ensures access to regular education classes as much as possible, requiring an Individual Education Program (IEP) for each student.
This act benefits students, parents, and teachers by guaranteeing students a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and mandating the creation of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each student with a disability. This ensures students receive the support and education tailored to their needs, parents actively involved in decision-making, and teachers provided with the resources.
It addressed the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) pillar by mandating that all children with disabilities be provided with a free and appropriate education tailored to their individual needs.

Special Education Law: PL 99- 457

kelseyberger14 — 2025-09-04 02:47:59 UTC

Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) of 1986
October 8, 1986
This act accomplished significant expansion of services for children with disabilities by mandating free public education for children ages 3-5 and establishing a federal grant program.
It is unique because it established the first federal mandates for early intervention services for infants and toddlers with developmental delays and significantly expanded special education services to preschoolers.
This act benefited students, parents, and teachers by mandating free public education for disabled preschoolers, establishing financial incentives for early intervention services, promoting family involvement, requiring individualized plans, and expanding opportunities for inclusion within the least restrictive environment.
It addressed the early intervention pillar of special education. The law focused on providing services for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, an age group not fully covered by previous legislation.

Oberti v Board of Education

mil02475 — 2025-09-04 08:17:06 UTC

Oberti
1992
Made receiving federal funding a condition for schools to have free public education which helped children with learning disabilities.
Created the Oberti test which is a test to see if schools are meeting requirements from the IDEA.
This benefits parents who no longer have to travel outside of school districts to give their child with learning disabilities a good education.
Least Restrictive Environment because it gave schools a requirement to educate kids with learning disabilities as well as children without them.

Cedar Rapids v Garret F

mil02475 — 2025-09-04 08:34:10 UTC

Cedar Rapids
1998
Gave medical services to children with disabilities and schools were required to bear the financial burden.
Was not focused on education as much as it was focused on the medical attention that came with a child with a disability attending school.
This benefits both students and parents as the students can come to school and the parents can send their child to school knowing they are receiving proper care.
Free Appropriate Public Education, due to the fact that the school had to accommodate for students disabilities with no cost to the parents.

Special Education Law: PL 101- 476

kelseyberger14 — 2025-09-04 15:59:10 UTC

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990
October 30, 1990
This act accomplished renaming the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), adding autism and traumatic brain injury (TBI) to the list of recognized disabilities, and mandating transition planning and services for students aged 16 and older.
It is unique because it mandated the creation of a transition plan in the Individual Education Program (IEP) for students at least 16 years old to prepare them for life after school, including independent living, vocational training, and further education
This act benefits students by guaranteeing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and promoting inclusion in the least restrictive environment, which helps parents actively participate in their child's education through decision-making rights and access to information, while empowering teachers with mandated support, resources, and the framework for developing individualized, research-based education plans.
It addressed the pillar of
transition services by requiring that an individual transition plan (ITP) be created for students with disabilities no later than age 16.

Special Education Law: PL 105-17

kelseyberger14 — 2025-09-04 16:10:15 UTC

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
June 4, 1997
This act accomplished improving educational results for children with disabilities, increasing accountability, and strengthening parental involvement.
It is unique because it was the most comprehensive overhaul of the (IDEA) since its original enactment, significantly expanding disciplinary provisions, incorporating a broader definition of misconduct for interim placements.
This act benefits children with disabilities by expanding school authority to place students in alternative educational settings for up to 45 days for weapons and drug offenses.
It addressed education of children with disabilities by amending and reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - aimed to strike a balance between maintaining safe schools and ensuring that students with disabilities continue to receive a free appropriate public education.

con57689 — 2025-09-04 16:27:44 UTC

PL 93-112, section 504

1.The rights of students with disabilities under the IDEA, section 504 and the ADA

2.September 26th, 1973

3.Prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs or actives receiving federal financial assistance.

4.As section 504 is linked to federal funding it applies to all public elementary and secondary schools as well as some private ones, and most colleges and universities.

5.Students with disabilities have rights to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) and requires that they receive necessary supplementary aids and services if determined eligible.

The act was a significant step in the disability rights movement, providing a legal framework to protect the rights of people with disabilities and promote their participation in society and workforce.

con57689 — 2025-09-04 18:18:38 UTC

PL 101-336

1.American with disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990

2.July 26,1990

3.This law aims to ensure that children with disabilities have access to free appreciate education. It includes provision for public services, public accommodations, telecommunications

4.Employment prohibits private-sector employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring.

5. Reasonable Accommodation Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants and employees with disabilities to help them preform essential job functions.

6.Requires telephone and internet companies to provide relay services for individuals with hearing and speech disabilities, enabling them to communicate effectively.

con57689 — 2025-09-04 18:38:07 UTC

1.Americans with disabilities act amendments act of 2008

September 25,2008
Broadened scope of disability the act clarified that the disability should be interpreted in a way that is favorable to coverage rather than restrictive
the individual was subject to discrimination because of the individuals lack of disability
The broader definition of disability under the ADAAA also applies to section 503 of the Rehabilitation act
It reversed the narrow interpretations of the ADA's disability definition made by supreme court decision