Special Education Legislation

Front 1

PL94-142
Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)

Back 1

(1975) – mandated a free
appropriate public education for all children with a disability, ensured due process rights,
mandated education in the least restrictive environment and required that students receiving special education services have an individual education plan.

Front 2

PL98-199
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments

Back 2

(1983) This law allows for federal
funding to create parent training and information centers (PIC) so that parents could learn how to protect the rights that PL 94-142 guarantees their child. PL 98-199 also provided financial incentives to expand services for children from birth to age 3 and the initiatives for transition services from school to adult living for students with disabilities.

Front 3

PL99-457
Education for Handicapped Children Act (EHA)

Back 3

1986 – mandated services for
preschoolers with disabilities and called for the development of statewide systems of early
intervention services for infants and toddlers, birth to age 3

Front 4

PL100-407
Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act

Back 4

(1988) - This
act, a.k.a "The Tech Act," recognizes that students with disabilities need special equipment to perform better and more independently (assistive technology).

Front 5

PL101-476

Back 5

(1990) – changed the name Education for Handicapped Children Act to Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - authorized and expanded upon previous funding programs, mandated that assistive technology needs and transition services be added to IEPs and added autism and traumatic brain injury to the listing of educational handicapping conditions.

Front 6

PL101-336
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Back 6

(1990) - This act extends Section 504 of PL93-112 by requiring the rights of equal access and reasonable accommodation in employment and services provided by both private and public sectors.

Front 7

PL105-17
IDEA 1997

Back 7

reaffirms the basic principles of PL-94-142 and significant refinements made which impact the way parents, teachers and administrators go about important work of ensuring quality education and early intervention for children with disabilities. IDEA 1997 –
stresses parental involvement

Front 8

PL108-446
IDEA 2004

Back 8

most recent special education law emphasizing inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes testing or district testing with accommodation or in alternate assessments, required special education teachers be highly qualified

Front 9

PL107-110
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

Back 9

the nation’s latest general education law,emphasizes assessment and accountability and requires states to show adequately yearly progress (AYP) in raising student achievement.

Front 10

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Back 10

Before there was IDEA, there was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Section 504 of this Act continues to play an important role in education, especially for students with disabilities who may not qualify for special education services under IDEA.

Front 11

PL101-336
Americans with Disabilities Act
The ADA

Back 11

Passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President in July 1990, the ADA is the first
comprehensive declaration of equality for people with disabilities. The ADA protects the civil rights of people with disabilities in all aspects of employment, in accessing public services such as transportation, and guaranteeing access to public accommodations such as restaurants, stores, hotels and other types of buildings to which the public has access.

Front 12

PL108-364
Assistive Technology Act

Back 12

Assistive technology can greatly improve the access and function of people with disabilities in school, work, home, and community. The Assistive Technology Act is intended to ensure that people with disabilities have access to assistive technology devices and services. Find your state’s AT program!

Front 13

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Back 13

(1954) set a precedent for equality in education which was extended to children with disabilities

Front 14

Diana v. State of Education

Back 14

(1970)ruled that students cannot be placed in special education on the basis of culturally biased tests or tests given in other than the child’s native language. This ruling resulted in requirements to implement nondiscriminatory assessment methods, including testing students in their native
language

Front 15

Larry P. v. Riles

Back 15

(1979)This case dealt with African American students who were inappropriately placed in Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) classrooms based on IQ scores only. The Court ruled that other forms of assessment be used as well as record keeping and data collection from the schools. This case serves as the precedence that IQ tests cannot be the only resource used when determining
placement of minority students in special education programs

Front 16

Lau v. Nichols

Back 16

(1974)If a substantial number of non-English speaking students reside in the district, the district must provide for these students with classes in English.

Front 17

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro

Back 17

(1984)Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is a related service when necessary to allow a student to stay in school

Front 18

Penn Assoc. Retarded Citizens V. Commonwealth of Penn

Back 18

(1972) ruled that children with mental retardation have the right to a free and appropriate public
education and that parents who are dissatisfied with their children’s placement have the right to a due process under the law

Front 19

Mill v. Board of Education

Back 19

(1972)ruled that students with disabilities have the same right to a education as nondisabled
students. Financial problems cannot be allowed to have a greater impact on children with
disabilities than on students without disabilities.

Front 20

Honig v. Doe

Back 20

(1988)ruled that students couldn’t be removed from school if the inappropriate behavior is related
to the disability. Schools could suspend a student for up to 10 days, but not more than 10 days
without due process

Front 21

Oberti v. Board of Education

Back 21

(1993)- landmark cases that stated that children with Down syndrome have a right to be educated in the general education classroom

Front 22

IDEA Six Principles

Back 22

1.Zero reject
2.Nondiscriminatory evaluation
3.Appropriate education (IEP)
4.Lease restrictive environment
5.Procedural Due Process
6.Parents of children with disabilities participate in the planning and decision making for their child's special education

Front 23

Zero Reject

Back 23

rules against excluding any student

Front 24

Nondiscriminatory evaluation

Back 24

rule requiring school to evaluate students fairly to determine if they have a disability and, if so, what kind and how extensive

Front 25

Appropriate education (IEP)

Back 25

a free, appropriate public education the all children who been identified as needing special education. Program must be tailored to the needs of the students. Includes related services and supplementary aides and services if needed

Front 26

Lease restrictive environment

Back 26

when the Individualized Education Program (IEP) is written, a determination is made regarding the amount of time each student with disabilities will spend with nondisabled peers both in classroom and all other school activities

Front 27

procedural due process

Back 27

provides safeguards against schools, sctions, including a right to sue in court, provisions are made for the settlement of disputes by an impartial third party

Front 28

parents of children with disabilities participate in the planning and decision making for their child's special education

Back 28

parents' rights primarily involve access to students' educational records for inspection and review and the need for parental consent to release personally identifiable information