The History of Special Education Law Chapter 4 The History of Special Education Law

Critical Event #1 Heroic Individual and Group Efforts Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Michigan School Code Sec. 340 Michigan School Code Sec. 340.614 Expulsion of Pupils Physically or Mentally Handicapped (M.S.A. 15.3613) Sec. 613. The Board may authorize or order the suspension of expulsion from school of any pupil guilty of gross misdemeanor or persistent disobedience, or one having habits or bodily conditions detrimental to the school whenever in its judgment the interests of the school may demand it; provided that, except in the case in which the parents or legal guardian of a child refuses to have the child medically or clinically examined, no child may be expelled or suspended from school upon this basis or physical handicap unless the Board had obtained a certified statement from a physician that the child is so physically handicapped that he/she should not attend school, or on the basis of mental handicap unless the Board obtained a statement from a psychiatrist or a child center or clinic or other appropriate agency.

Early Development The exclusion of students with disabilities to relieve stress on teachers Some training for manual jobs Parental advocacy Council for Exceptional Children, 1922 Cuyahoga Council for Retarded Children, 1933 National Association for Retarded Citizens (The ARC), 1950 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #2 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Status Quo: Separate but Equal PLESSY vs. FERGUSON (1896) Supreme Court decision Principle that separate accommodations that were roughly equal sufficed for meeting the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution For the next 50 years, the law of the land was “Separate but Equal”

Brown v. Board of Education--EEO The US Supreme Court decided that in the context of education, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution amounted to a policy of Equal Education Opportunity Separate is inherently unequal

Brown v. Board of Education “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 that must be available to all on equal terms.” -Chief Justice Earl Warren- Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #3 Right to Education Cases Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Nearly 2 decades later… Parents finally win EEO for students with disabilities in the courts! Two Seminal Cases: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania (343 F.Supp, 279, E.D. PA, 1972) Mills v. District of Columbia Board of Education (348 F.Supp, 869, D.D.C. 1972)

Two important cases because: – PARC syllogism – Mills: fundamentals of procedural safeguards –“law of the land” status Offer of FAPE

Pressure on Congress led to federal legislation

Early Federal Involvement 197 Federal Laws – 1827 and EHA 1975 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 The Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Education Amendments of 1974 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #4 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Six Principles of IDEA Principle of IDEA Requirement Zero Reject Locate, identify, & provide services to all eligible students with disabilities Protection in Evaluation Conduct an assessment to determine if a student has an IDEA related disability and if he/she needs special education services Free Appropriate Public Education Develop and deliver an individualized education program of special education services that confers meaningful educational benefit. Least Restrictive Environment Educate students with disabilities with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate. Procedural Safeguards Comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. Parental Participation Collaborate with parents in the development and delivery of their child’s special education program. Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Focus of EAHCA To ensure access to public education for students with disabilities Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Reauthorizations of the EAHCA 1986 The Handicapped Children’s Protection Act The Infants & Toddlers with Disabilities Act 1990 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The Intent of 2004 Reauthorization The legislation will improve results for children with special needs, improve choices for parents, and give teachers the freedom they need to do their jobs.

Critical Event #4 Board of Education v. Rowley 458, U.S. 176 (1982) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Free Appropriate Public Education “We hold that the state satisfies the FAPE requirement by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, pp. 203-204) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The Rowley Twofold Inquiry Has the state complied with the procedures in the act? Is the IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #5 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA '97) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 The underlying theme of IDEA '97 was to improve the effectiveness of special education by requiring demonstrable improvements in the educational achievement of students with disabilities Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Goal of IDEA '97 “To move to the next step in providing special education: To improve and increase educational achievement of students with disabilities” H.R. 105-95 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #6 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

NCLB Accountability NCLB focuses on: NCLB accomplishes this by: Increasing the academic achievement of all public school students Improving the performance of low-performing schools Requiring schools to adopt scientifically based instructional practices NCLB accomplishes this by: Requiring states to measure the progress of students and groups of students, including students with disabilities, every year Reporting the results of these measures to parents Requiring states to set proficiency standards that schools must attain within a set period of time Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Important Things to Understand About NCLB NCLB is a reaction to low academic achievement in America’s students NCLB is sweeping legislation that will exert a profound influence on education NCLB recognizes and embraces science NCLB will affect the ways that universities prepare teachers and teachers teach their students NCLB is here to stay (although there will be modifications to the law) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #7 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education: A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families (11/2/01) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Major Findings Process and compliance are often placed above results The wait-to-fail model of special education prevents prevention Lack of scientifically based approaches in general education results in inappropriate placements A culture of compliance results in too much attention has been diverted from the first mission of schools: educating every child Many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity & many children are misidentified The current system does not always embrace evidence-based practices, Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Major Recommendations Focus on results—not on process: The IDEA must retain the legal and procedural safeguards necessary to guarantee a FAPE while providing opportunities and improved student outcomes Embrace a model of prevention not a model of failure: Special education must move toward early identification and swift intervention using scientifically based instruction and teaching methods Consider children with disabilities as general education children first: General and special education must work together to provide effective teaching because both systems share responsibilities for children with disabilities Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Critical Event #8 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Focus of IDEA 2004 To increase the academic achievement of students in special education Focus on writing measurable goals and actually measuring them Focus on progress monitoring To increase accountability for results To streamline the special education process Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Challenges to Special Education Conduct relevant assessments of students’ educational needs Implement research-based instructional programming, based on these assessments, that confers meaningful educational benefit Monitor students’ progress using data- based formative evaluation systems Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

Changes in Special Education Law Heroic Individual and Group Efforts The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1974 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 Issues of Access Issues of Quality Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved