Major court cases that have influenced special education



Major court cases that have influenced special education and

key federal legislation concerning education and the civil rights of children with disabilities*

Public schools have served as the main battleground for extending civil rights to children.

Whatever the social purposes of education may be, access to that education was the primary civil right being claimed.

1929—By this time there were 100 programs for teachers of the handicapped, that is, for students taught outside of regular education. Regular education and special education were separate services, with special education programs being developed for severely handicapped children.

1945—Mendez v Westminster

A US District Court outlawed the segregation of Mexican children in schools in Orange County, CA.

"The equal protection of the laws pertaining to the public school system in California is not provided by furnishing in separate schools the same technical facilities, text books and courses of instruction to children of Mexican ancestry that are available to the other public school children regardless of their ancestry. A paramount requisite in the American system of public education is social equality. It must be open to all children by unified school association regardless of lineage."

Federal District Judge, Paul J. McCormick, from Mendez v. Westminister School Dist. of Orange County, 64 F.Supp. 544 (D.C.CAL. 1946)

1954—Brown v Board of Education

The landmark litigation in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregating students based on race was unconstitutional; rejected "separate but equal" based on 14th Amendment and established the right of all children to an equal opportunity for an education.

The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.

…In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the [14th] Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

…We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Opinion, May 17, 1954

1964—Civil Rights Act (PL 88-352)

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

1965—Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10)

Provided money to state and local districts for developing programs for economically disadvantaged students and for students with disabilities

1967—Hanson v Hobson

A US District Court declared that a tracking system in which children were placed into either regular or special classes based on scores on intelligence tests was unconstitutional because it discriminated against African American and poor children.

1970—Diana v State Board of Education

In California, the court ruled that educational placement testing must be culturally neutral and conducted in the language of the child.

1972—PARC, Bowman, et al v Commonwealth of Penn

US District Court ruled that students with mental retardation have a right to a free, appropriate, public education, regardless of severity of handicapping condition.

1972—Mills vs Board of Education

US District Court affirmed that students cannot be excluded from school because of a disability.

1973—PL 93-112 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

A person cannot, on the basis of a disability, be excluded from any program or activity receiving federal funds.

1974—Lau v Nichols

The Supreme Court concluded that the civil rights of students who do not understand the language of instruction are being violated.

1975—PL 94-142 (EAHCA)

Mandated FAPE (free, appropriate education for all children with disabilities age 6-21); protected the rights of parents and children in educational decision-making; required the development of an IEP for each child with a disability; students must be educated in least restrictive environment (LRE)

1982—Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson School District vs Rowley

The US Supreme Court upheld the right of every child with a disability to a personalized program of instruction and necessary services. First case based on PL 94-142.

1986—EAHCA Amendment (PL 99-457)

Extends FAPE to 3-5 year olds.

1988—Honig v Doe

The US Supreme Court ruled that students with disabilities cannot be excluded from school for any misbehavior that is related to a disability (but educational services may cease if conduct is not related to a disability).

1990—ADA (PL 101-476 Americans with Disabilities Act)

Provides civil rights protection against discrimination to all citizens with disabilities, and provides access to all citizens to public services.

1997—IDEA (PL 105-17 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Adds several major provisions to those outlined in PL 94-142, including team composition, students must have access to the general curriculum, IEP must address positive behavioral support plans when appropriate, students must be included in state testing, requirements for manifestation determination.

Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.... [One purpose of this Act is] to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, pp. 4, 8

1998—Prop 227 California

Eliminated bilingual education in California (2002, Question 2 in Massachusetts).

2001—NCLB (Reauthorization of ESEA, PL 105-17)

Established educational requirements for student proficiency and requirements that all teachers be “highly qualified.”

2004—Reauthorization of IDEA (PL 108-446)

Retained key components and principles of IDEA. State regulations addressing areas of change have not been provided yet. Key change is that “response to instruction” may be used to identify learning disabilities.

*Adapted from, Heward, 2006; Choate, 1997; and Nieto, 2005; and primary documents.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download