Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Landmark Cases in Inclusion
Transcript of Landmark Cases in Inclusion
History of Inclusion in Education
Watson v. City of Cambridge, 1893
In Massachusetts in 1893, a child with disabilities was excluded by a school committee because “he was so weak in mind as to not derive any marked benefit from instruction and further, that he is troublesome to other children.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to discriminate against any group of people. With respect to schoolchildren, the Court ruled that the concept of “separate-but-equal” educational facilities for children of different races was inherently unequal. The justification for this ruling was found in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that individuals cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Diana v. State Board of Education (California), 1970
The court ruled that children cannot be placed in special education based on culturally biased test.
1972- Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education (District of Columbia):
These cases established the right to education for students with disabilities and found that denial of education violates the 14th Amendment.
1982: Board of Education v. Rowley (New York)
The Supreme Court defined “free and appropriate education” and directed that public schools must provide appropriate special education services.
1988: Honig v. Doe (California):
This decision was concerned with extensive suspensions of students with emotional disturbances from school for aggressive behavior that the court determined was disability related. The court ruled that a suspension of longer than 10 days was effectively a change in placement, requiring all the necessary procedures governing a change in placement.
1992: Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District (New Jersey
A federal district court ruled that a self-contained special education class was not the LRE for a student with Down syndrome. The court ruled that school districts were obligated to consider regular class placement first, with supplementary aids and services, before considering alternative placements.
Section 504-Rehabilitation Act of 1973, U.S.C. Section 794
Recipients of federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of disability.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)
All children—including those with disabilities formerly excluded from school—were entitled to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
1983- Amendments to the Education of the handicapped Act (PL 98-199):
These amendments mandate states to collect data on students with disabilities existing systems and to address transition needs of secondary students with disabilities. In addition, they provide incentives to states to provide services to infants and preschoolers with disabilities.
1984- Perkins Act, 20 U.S.C. 2301, 233-234:
This act mandates that 10% of all vocational education funding must be for students with disabilities. Vocational education should be provided in the LRE secondary support is provided for students with disabilities.
1986- Education for All Handicapped Children Act Amendments (PL 99-457)
These amendments encourage states to develop comprehensive services for infants and toddlers (birth through age 2) with disabilities and to expand services for preschool children (ages 3-5). After the 1990-91 school year, all states must provide free and appropriate education to all 3- to 5-year-olds with disabilities or forfeit federal assistance for preschool funding.
1971—Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Challenged the constitutionality of excluding individuals with mental retardation from public education and training. The state was not allowed to “deny to any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training.”
Up until the 1950s there was very little protection for subgroups of students in the public education sector. Students could be discriminated against based off of race, mental, or physical disability. Most of the court cases pre-1970 showed the court’s ruling in favor of the states that choose to exclude the students based off of disability. It was not until the 1970s that the courts started using the 14th Amendment in the same way that Brown v. Board of Education did in 1954.
In 1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education (District of Columbia) ruled that denying education to students with disabilities went against the 14th amendment. These rulings were later upheld largely by laws put in place like Section-504 in 1973 that told recipients of federal funds they cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. This was also later confirmed by the The Education for All Handicapped Children Act that specified that all children, including those with disabilities, were entitled to a free, appropriate public education. Since the passing of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, there have been several amendments to clarify and expand. This includes the 1983 amendment that requires states to collect data on students with disabilities.
The gathering of data has led to local LEAs putting together suggested RTI programs to help students. These programs help start by identifying issues a student may be having in the general ed classroom and fixing them through communication with parents, before bringing in outside help or adding the student to a special needs program. The goal of programs is also that students can be moved out of services with time. All individuals struggle at some point, and proper monitoring may help the students phase out of needed assistance as they progress through school.
The goal of further inclusion resources is to allow students to receive as much instruction as possible and spend the majority of their time in the general education setting. With the improvement in education of the general education students, the students should need to be taken away less. This allows for the students to have the social aspect of the school experience. Better execution of individual lesion plans will allow for students with specific needs to learn beside their peers and be known for who they are as individuals.