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

2. 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

4. Michigan School Code Sec. 340
Michigan School Code Sec Expulsion of Pupils Physically or Mentally Handicapped (M.S.A )
Sec 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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)

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

13. Pressure on Congress led to federal legislation

14. 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

15. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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 )
Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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
Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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