Chapter4 history of sped law

447 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
447
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Chapter4 history of sped law

  1. 1. 1 The History of Special Education Law Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 3 Early Development • Compulsory attendance laws • The exclusion of students with disabilities • 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
  4. 4. 4 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
  5. 5. 5 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
  6. 6. 6 Critical Event #3 Right to Education Cases Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved
  7. 7. 7 The 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) Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved
  8. 8. 8 Early Federal Involvement • 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
  9. 9. 9 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
  10. 10. 10 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
  11. 11. 11 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
  12. 12. 12 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
  13. 13. 13 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
  14. 14. 14 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
  15. 15. 15 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
  16. 16. 16 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
  17. 17. 17 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
  18. 18. 18 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
  19. 19. 19 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
  20. 20. 20 NCLB Accountability • NCLB focuses on: a. Increasing the academic achievement of all public school students b. Improving the performance of low-performing schools c. Requiring schools to adopt scientifically based instructional practices • NCLB accomplishes this by: a. Requiring states to measure the progress of students and groups of students, including students with disabilities, every year b. Reporting the results of these measures to parents c. 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
  21. 21. 21 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
  22. 22. 22 Adequate Yearly Progress in South Carolina: Reading 01-02 02-03 03-04 06-07 09-10 08-09 07-08 05-06 04-05 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 17.6 proficient 10% 30% 40% 90% 100% 20% 80% 60% 50% 70% 38.2% Proficient 58.8% Proficient 79.4% Proficient 100% Proficient Yell / The Law and Special Education, Second Edition Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved
  23. 23. 23 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
  24. 24. 24 Major Findings 1. Process and compliance are often placed above results 2. The wait-to-fail model of special education prevents prevention 3. Lack of scientifically based approaches in general education results in inappropriate placements 4. A culture of compliance results in too much attention has been diverted from the first mission of schools: educating every child 5. Many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity & many children are misidentified 6. 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
  25. 25. 25 Major Recommendations 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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
  26. 26. 26 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
  27. 27. 27 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
  28. 28. 28 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
  29. 29. 29 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

×