If you spend enough time around special education, IEP meetings, evaluations, written notice, procedural safeguards, and FAPE can start to feel like part of the furniture. They're built into the process, and it's easy to stop wondering who put them there or why.
As recently as 1970, many states still allowed schools to exclude children whose learning, communication, mobility, or support needs fell outside what schools were prepared to serve. Families had few meaningful ways to challenge what was decided about their children. The protections we have now grew out of years of families, advocates, and people directly affected pushing for change. Much of what can feel bureaucratic today exists because families had so little to rely on when a system made decisions that affected their child.
Once you know the history, some of the furniture starts to look different.
Drag across the line to see what changed at each point, and what was still unresolved.
The Supreme Court rejected state-enforced racial segregation in public schools. Brown was a racial desegregation case led by Black families, attorneys, organizers, and communities. Its constitutional reasoning around equality and public education later became part of the legal landscape disability-rights advocates could draw from.
Brown didn't address disability discrimination. Children with disabilities could still be excluded from public education in many parts of the country.
Around 1970, American public schools were educating only about one in five children who would now be entitled to disability-related educational protections and supports. Many states still had laws permitting schools to refuse enrollment to children considered uneducable or too disruptive. If a school decided it couldn't or wouldn't serve a child, families often had little or no meaningful process for challenging that decision.
Those children stayed home with families who had few options, were placed in state institutions where many received little more than custodial care and little or no education, or ended up in segregated programs with limited educational opportunity. What a family could access depended largely on where they lived, what they could afford, and whether anyone in authority was willing to help.
The Disability History Museum holds letters, photographs, and public records from families and institutions during this period — documents that show what exclusion looked like in practice. A note before reading further: Some of this material reflects the language and conditions of its time and may be difficult to sit with.
Brown was a racial segregation case, brought by Black families and developed through years of organizing and litigation led by Black communities, the NAACP, and civil-rights attorneys. That history is its own, and it should be understood on its own terms.
What matters here is what the Supreme Court's reasoning made possible beyond its original context. The Court held that when a state provides public education, it must make that education available to all children on equal terms. That principle became part of the legal landscape that later disability rights advocates could draw on. It didn't cause what followed, but it created constitutional ground that others would eventually stand on.
The rights that exist in special education today were built by people who kept showing up and insisting that exclusion was wrong.
Parents organized, testified, and filed lawsuits. They appeared at school board meetings and legislative hearings asking questions that shouldn't have been difficult: Why is my child not allowed in this school? Why was this decision made without telling me? Why doesn't anyone have to justify this?
People with disabilities and disability rights activists pushed against a society that treated exclusion as natural and institutional confinement as adequate care. They challenged the assumption that people with disabilities were problems to manage rather than citizens with rights to exercise.
Closer Look: The Worst Handicap of All?
U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1968. Courtesy of the Disability History Museum, Harvey Liebergott Collection.
Pennsylvania had a law allowing schools to deny education to children they deemed unable to benefit from it, and the state used that authority broadly. Children with intellectual disabilities were excluded from public schools, placed in institutions, or simply left without services.
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC), together with families of children who had been excluded, challenged those practices. The resulting consent agreement established that all children with intellectual disabilities in the state were entitled to a free public education. It also established procedural protections: the right to notice, and the right of parents to participate in decisions about their child's placement. The resulting agreement made clear that these children had a legal right to be educated and that families had a right to be part of the process.
Where PARC focused on children with intellectual disabilities, Mills addressed a broader group. Seven children in Washington, D.C. with a range of disabilities had been excluded from school entirely. The school district's defense was straightforward: it didn't have the money to educate them.
The court rejected that argument. If funding was limited, the burden couldn't fall disproportionately on children with disabilities. Insufficient resources didn't justify denying a child access to education. The ruling also reinforced protections around notice, hearings, and the decision-making process itself, establishing that removing a child from school requires justification, not just an administrative decision.
By the mid-1970s, similar challenges were emerging across the country, while decisions like PARC and Mills were changing the legal expectations around educational access.
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, requiring public schools to provide a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities. It established evaluations, individualized education programs (IEPs), parent participation, written notice, consent requirements, and due process protections. It was later reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the law we now call IDEA.
Each of those requirements has a reason. Written notice exists because major decisions about a child's education were being made in conversations that left no record and required no accountability. Parent participation exists because families were routinely excluded from the process entirely. Evaluation procedures exist because assumptions and informal labels were shaping where children ended up, often permanently. Due process exists because disagreement between a family and a school can't depend on whether they happen to get along.
The formality of these protections is the point. They were designed to function even when relationships are strained, when leadership changes, when resources shift, when the people who made a commitment are no longer in the room.
Good special education often depends on trust, flexibility, and real collaboration between families and schools. People who do this work well know that relationships matter, and that the best outcomes usually involve genuine partnership rather than procedural standoffs.
But rights serve a different function than relationships. Relationships depend on the people currently involved. Rights remain when the people change. A family that has a strong, trusting relationship with their child's current team may not have that same relationship next year, or at the next school, or in the next district. What stays constant, if anything does, is the legal structure underneath.
That's what the history teaches. Informal goodwill wasn't enough protection. Families learned that through experience, sometimes across generations. The procedural requirements that can feel burdensome in a well-functioning team exist because of what happened in their absence.
Gaining the legal right to attend public school didn't automatically create inclusion. A child can have the right to be in a building and still spend most of the day separated from peers. A child can have an IEP and still experience a placement that is more restrictive than their individual needs require. A child can be physically present in a general education classroom and still not be part of what's happening there.
Belonging, dignity, high expectations, communication access, agency, and real participation in school life require more than what a law can guarantee. They require ongoing commitment, and they're still unevenly distributed. The fight for access mattered enormously, and what came after it still matters too.
Children eating together at the Rise School, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Library of Congress. Public domain.
Rights can become so familiar that people stop seeing why they were needed. Procedural safeguards start to feel like technical paperwork. Educators inherit systems without inheriting the history behind them. Families receive forms and notices without knowing what problem those procedures were originally designed to solve.
When people treat rights as permanent simply because they are familiar, they lose sight of the conditions that made those rights necessary. And when that history fades, it becomes easier to see procedural protections as obstacles rather than as the infrastructure of accountability that they are.
Implementation is still uneven. How consistently families experience these rights in practice can vary with where they live, district resources, their ability to navigate a complex system, and how seriously the process is implemented. The gap between rights on paper and rights in practice has never fully closed.
If rights were created because goodwill alone wasn't enough, then inheriting them comes with some responsibility: to understand what they protect, to recognize what they cost, and to notice when they're being treated as less than what they are.
Nicole Newnham & Jim LeBrecht, 2020
This documentary follows a group of teenagers with disabilities from Camp Jened in the early 1970s into the disability rights movement that followed. It connects directly to the history in this issue.
Endia J. Lindo, Patricia Martínez-Álvarez, Amanda L. Sullivan & Kathleen King Thorius, 2025
A short look at what IDEA changed, the advocacy that came before it, and where the promise of the law still falls short in practice.
A question to carry forward
What does it take for a right that exists on paper to become something a student can actually experience?
If you want to take that question one step further, the National Center for Learning Disabilities is running a current advocacy action to strengthen IDEA protections.
See the action
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was signed into law in 1973, prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in any program receiving federal funding. But for four years, the regulations needed to enforce it went unsigned.
In April 1977, activists with disabilities occupied the San Francisco office of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and stayed for twenty-six days. They slept on the floor, organized their own food supply with help from the Black Panther Party, local unions, and community supporters, held press conferences from inside the building, and refused to leave until the regulations were signed.
It worked. HEW Secretary Joseph Califano signed the regulations on April 28, 1977. It remains one of the longest occupations of a federal building in U.S. history, and it demonstrated something the disability rights movement already knew: passing a law isn't the same as making it real. Rights on paper require people willing to insist on their enforcement.
Read the full story: 504 Protest: Disability, Community, and Civil Rights — National Park Service
"SIGN 504" button, American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities. Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Public domain.
"We showed strength and courage and power and commitment ... that we, the shut-ins, or the shut-outs, we the hidden, supposedly the frail and the weak, that we can wage a struggle, at the highest level of government, and win."
Kitty Cone, 504 Sit-In victory rally, April 30, 1977
The next time you sign a procedural safeguards form or sit through the formal parts of an IEP meeting, consider that someone once fought for every one of those steps to exist. They knew what happened without them.
One email per month. Unsubscribe anytime.
All Issues
