It was in
1749 that D. Diderot languished in a Parisian prison for almost 5 months for
the crime a publishing a radical new notion. Specifically, in his publication titled, Lettre sur les
aveugles รก l’usage de ceux qui voient, or
“Letter on the Blind for the Use of Those Who See,” the criminal act was the
allegation that those French citizens without sight may in fact be able to lead
normal, productive lives (Ally Bacon, 2010). It is a testament to the progress
of human society in its recognition and treatment of persons with disabilities,
that today their advocates are no longer deemed criminally dangerous. To the
contrary, they now represent a powerful and influential component of the US
education system, and serve more than 6 million children with disabilities in
the US every year (NICHCY, 2012). While decades once passed between major
innovations and improvements in special education, the 20thand 21st centuries have seen a near exponential growth and multiplication
of services, laws, and integration of the disabled with the larger community
(Ally Bacon, 2010).
The
cornerstone of US policy regarding special education for individuals with
disabilities is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. Initially passed by Congress in 1975,
the law revolutionized the treatment of disabled students in US public schools,
and established a host of news rights, expectations, and parameters to meet
their specific needs. Prior to its
implementation, US schools serviced only ~20% of students with disabilities
(USOSEP). Many others – for
instance, more than 200,000 individuals as of 1967 – were housed in state
institutions, “many of [which…] provided only minimal food, clothing, and
shelter” (USOSEP). This
nightmarish reality was exacerbated by the fact that, by and large, such
facilities existed merely accommodate and cordon off those deemed “retarded,”
instead of “assess[ing], educat[ing], and rehabilitat[ing]” their charges
(USOSEP). Additionally, another
3.5 million children were ostensibly in school, but were in fact not given
“adequate services” and in actuality merely “warehoused” in segregated
facilities (NCD, 2000). However, with the gradually increasing public awareness
of the dismal realities of these supposedly humanitarian facilities, it became more
and more obvious that fundamental legal change needed to occur in order to
protect this vulnerable segment of the population. In 1972, in Mills vs.
Washington D.C. Board of Education, and Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal courts sided with advocates
for the disabled and ordered both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
District of Columbia to “provide a free, appropriate education to all students
with disabilities [and educate them] in the same schools as students without
disabilities” (Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 9).
Realizing
the need a national policy reflecting these rulings, in 1975 Congress passed
Public Law 94-142 (then known as “The Education for All Handicapped Children
Act”), stipulating that all children with disabilities were to have equal
access to publically funded education, and giving those schools the resources
they required to meet that end goal (Cheadle, 1987). This law extended legal
protection to students age six to eighteen and, though it was a successful
first step, it became apparent over the following two decades that additional
protections were necessary. As
such, the law – subsequently known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act [IDEA] – was amended and expanded in 1990. This amendment, known as Part B,
expanded the law’s guarantees to down to children as young as three, and as old
as twenty-one (Turnbull, Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 9). In a reflection of the evolving understanding
of the times, the language and focus of IDEA as compared to its predecessor was
far more centered on the individual rather than the disabling condition, as
evidenced by its introduction of the Individualized Education Plan [IEP] (p.
42-43).
The
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB] instituted a number of new provisions
and policies regarding students with disabilities and their right to quality
education. Most significantly,
NCLB emphasized the importance of assessments for students with disabilities,
and of providing incentives for schools to demonstrate continuing progress in
meeting their individuated needs (USDoE, 2007, “No Child”). In 2004 (rat. 2006), IDEA was
reauthorized and amended with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004 [IDEA 2004], with several key changes. The provisions were once again expanded to now include
preschool aged children with disabilities (0-3), and to better align with the
requirements of NCLB. These
alignments included: an agreement on the necessity and definition of “highly
qualified teachers,” the establishment of both goals and substantive
assessments of progress toward said goals for students with disabilities, and
that, while such goals/assessments may be modified by a states, they must still
meet the minimum benchmarks put forth by standardized assessments (USDoE, 2007,
“Alignment”).
In
current law, eligibility for special education programs as defined by IDEA
hinges on a child being shown to fall into a recognized disability category. The most common categories are:
specific learning disabilities (43%), speech or language impairment (19%),
intellectual disabilities (8%), and emotional or behavioral disorders (7%) (Turnbull,
Turnbull, and Wehmeyer, 2010, p. 6).
Students served by special education programs must also demonstrate that
their disability renders them unable to optimally learn in a normal classroom
environment unassisted. IDEA
guarantees students with disabilities and their families that no student in
need will be excluded (“zero reject”), that there will be an evaluation of
their disability free from prejudice or discrimination, that the student will
receive an appropriate education tailored to their individual needs, that said
education will be conducted in as least restrictive and segregated environment
as possible, and that both parents and students have the right to collaborate
and influence the design and execution of their own educational process (p.
11-12).
The U.S. and its public schools have come a long way in just a few
decades, and are full committed to the idea that all students deserve and
should expect a full, complete, and equal education. As both technologies and expectations shift in the coming
decades, it is very likely that the principles and requirements set forth in
IDEA will need to be revised again.
But that revision process will likely be relatively minimal, as there is
already a very supportive and comprehensive system in place for students with
disabilities and their families.
Resources
Ally Bacon Interactive Timeline (2010). Teaching students with
special needs in inclusive settings. Retrieved from http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/4549/4658915/timeline.htm
on 11/04/12.
Cheadle, B.
(1987). “PL-94-142: What Does it Really Say?” in Winter Reflections (Vol. 6, No. 1). Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/fr/fr6/issue1/f060113.html
on 11/04/12.
National
Council on Disability (2000).
“Back to School on Civil Rights.”
Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2000/Jan252000
on 11/04/12.
National
Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2010). “Children (3 to 22).” Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/schoolage on 11/04/12.
Turnbull, A.,
Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special
education in today's schools (with MyEducationLab) (6th ed). Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
U.S. Department of
Education (2007). “No Child Left
Behind: A Desktop Reference.”
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/index.html
on 11/04/12.
U.S. Department of Education (2007). “Topic: Alignment with the No Child Left
Behind Act.” Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C3%2C
on 11/04/12.
U.S. Office of Special Education
Programs. “History: 25 Years of
Progress in Educating Children With Disabilities Through IDEA.” Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf
on 11/04/12.
