Presentation on the history of special education for new special education parents.

1. HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
An Introduction for New Special Education Parents
Ashlee Vice
SPE/300
February 15, 2016
Sonja Lamppe
University of Phoenix
Figure 1. Word Cloud (Dinkelacker, 2016).

2. INTRODUCTION
 Challenges
 In addition to the challenges you face at home, you take on an
extra time commitment to your child’s education. “Unlike parents
of children in general education classrooms, parents of children
in need of special education are expected to be heavily involved
in their child’s education. They are given roles to play in
establishing the child’s eligibility for special education, identifying
what the child’s educational plan should contain, and monitoring
whether the plan is being put into effect” (Czapanskiy, 2014).
 Teamwork
 We work as a team to ensure the BEST educational opportunity
and chance for success for your child. “The teachers who
provide the services and the parents of the children who receive
them need enough of the basic building blocks to be able to ask
the right questions, understand the answers, and recognize the
basic rights and duties under the IDEA, section 504/ADA, and
the related state special education laws” (Zirkel, 2005).

3. EVOLUTION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
 Today’s society recognizes the rights of every individual to an
equal opportunity in all aspects of life. Historically speaking,
individuals with disabilities were not granted those rights…
 “Beginning early in the 19th century, social reformers advocated, and
created, new institutions that specialized in what were thought of
then as discrete problems: criminality, juvenile delinquency, physical
illness, mental illness, deafness, blindness, and mental retardation
(then termed “idiocy”)…these new institutions responded to the
social problems associated with early capitalism by emphasizing
removal from society” (Dorn, S., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S., 1996).
 Advocates of segregated institutions (asylums) believed that “a very
large proportion of all the insane are treated more effectively and far
more economically among strangers, and in well-managed
institutions specially provided for the treatment, than at their own
homes , and surrounded by their families, and by familiar scenes
and associations” (Dorn, et al. 1996).
 …we certainly have come A LONG way since then. Now lets
take a look at how we have evolved the special education
system.

4. IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY
 Special education “is not necessarily a special classroom but a well thought-out program
of collaborative interventions leading to educational goals set forth by a multidisciplinary
team” (Hurwtiz, 2008).
 Individualized Education Plan (IEP) “include the following: a general statement
regarding the child's current capabilities, annual goals, a statement regarding ‘related
services,’ the approximate time spent out of a ‘regular’ classroom, modifications needed
for mandated assessments, the projected date of commencement of the plan, how
progress will be measured, and a method to keep parents regularly informed” and is to
be developed with a team of education and medical professionals in collaboration with
parents (Hurwitz, 2008).
 Least Restrictive Environment “involves the general education classroom. A classroom
with an aide for the child is less restrictive than a special education classroom, followed
by a special school. The most restrictive setting would be a home environment”
(Hurwitz, 2008).
 Free Appropriate Public Education- Free literally means “no charge” and an appropriate
education must involve “a reasonably calculated benefit to the child's education”
(Hurwitz, 2008).
 Disability- “a child evaluated in accordance with Sec. Sec. 300.304 through 300.311 as
having mental retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or
language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional
disturbance (referred to in this part as "emotional disturbance"), an orthopedic
impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific
learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof,
needs special education and related services” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

5. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
ACT (IDEA)
 “Any child between ages 3-21 years who is mentally retarded, speech-or-
hearing-impaired, deaf, a victim of traumatic brain injury, visually
impaired, orthopedically impaired, autistic, learning-disabled, or
possesses another health impairment qualifies for special education if
the pre-existing impairment affects the learning potential of the child.
 Children with disabilities (regardless of type of disability) are entitled to a
free and appropriate education” in the least restrictive environment
(Hurwitz, 2008).
 “includes ‘related services’ and covers a child's need for services as long
as the child qualifies for special education and the services are
necessary to meet the education goals set forth in the individual
education plan. The services covered include transportation, counseling,
recreation and enrichment programs, school nurse services, and
physical, occupational, and speech therapy.
 Public schools and public educational agencies must seek, find, and
identify children with special-educational needs…Children in private
schools and homeless children are included.
 Nondiscriminatory testing and assessment are guaranteed…The child's
testing process must be free of cultural or language barriers.
 An individual education plan must exist for every child who qualifies for
special education” (Hurwitz, 2008).

6. HISTORICAL EVENTS
 Special education is “firmly planted in the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. This post-
Civil War proposal ensured that no state could deprive a
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law.
 Defining educational laws for children with special needs
took its next big leap during the civil rights movement of
the late 1950s and 1960s. The equal rights amendments
and desegregation laws opened the door for children
with disabilities to be included under the umbrella of
antidiscrimination legislation.
 Finally, educators, families, physicians, and even
disabled children themselves have lobbied for legal
education provisions that ultimately provide the best
possible learning environment for special-needs
children” (Hurwitz, 2008).

7. LEGISLATION
 “The first program of federal assistance to local school districts was
defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-
10). Title 1 of this statute provides federal funding for schools, based on
the number of students living at or below the poverty level. The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2002 replaces this legislation.
 The Handicapped Children's Early Education Assistance Act of 1968
(P.L. 95-538) provided for educational programs for young children with
disabilities. Demonstration projects or educational models were to be
funded, established, and then measured for their success in providing
educational services as early intervention programs.
 The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112) provided services
for the educationally handicapped (physically or mentally), to promote
independent functioning or employability. Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects against discrimination of service. It
ensures that children who may not meet “special education” definitions
can have appropriate classroom modifications.
 Education of All Handicapped Children (1975), was passed. This
groundbreaking act included the all-important inclusion of an individual
education plan for every child in special education. The child's education
must be carried out in the least restrictive environment…expanded to
become the Individuals with Disablities Education Act in 1990” (Hurwitz,
2008).

8. COURT RULINGS AND LEGISLATION
 “Defining a free and public education in the least
restrictive environment became clearer from the
case of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children v. Pennsylvania (1971).
 The court developed the concept of least restrictive
environment. A regular public classroom was a
better choice for educational training than a special-
education classroom which, in turn, was preferable
to a separate educational facility altogether”
(Hurwitz, 2008).

9. COURT RULINGS AND LEGISLATION
 Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) raised concerns in
regards to what classifies as "free appropriate public
education" (FAPE) and which services a child is entitled
to receive in order to have an education opportunity
equal to that of his or her nondisabled peers (Zirkel,
2005).
 “The Court, in both Rowley and in its later decisions,
refused to allow cost to determine the appropriateness
of services” and sought to clarify the terms and
conditions stated in IDEA (Seligmann, 2012).
 The Rowley case led to a deeper recognition of the
importance of individualized education in a one size
does not fit all approach which protects the right to
services that best benefit each student on their unique
circumstances (Seligmann, 2012).

10. COURT RULINGS AND LEGISLATION
 Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) and Cedar
Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. (1999) set
precedents relating to medical service exclusions concluding that
exclusion may only apply if treatment can only be provided by a
physician (Zirkel, 2005).
 “Accessibility of education for all children with disabilities was
tested in the courts in 1989. In Timothy W. v. Rochester, the
severity of a disability was not a matter of interpretation by the
state. Timothy was severely mentally retarded, a spastic
quadriplegic, and cortically blind. He was thought to be
uneducable. Timothy's right to a free and appropriate education
was upheld” (Hurwitz, 2008).
 In 1992, The American Academy of Pediatrics established a
policy statement regarding “the expansion and inclusion of
healthcare services during school hours have increasingly fallen
under the jurisdiction of public education. Children with complex
medical needs who are often sustained on technological devices
require physician input for their care during school hours”
(Hurwitz, 2008).

11. COURT RULINGS AND LEGISLATION
 Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education, (1985)
and Florence County School District v. Carter, (1993) involve
situations where parents chose to disregard the “stay-put” clause
and move their children to schools with more appropriate
resources leading to the creation of a set of circumstances that
allow for tuition reimbursement (Zirkel, 2005).
 “N.B. v. Warwick School Committee (2004) has important
ramifications for child advocates. The parents of an autistic child
brought suit against a school district. The child in question had an
individual education plan in place that involved a program called
the Treatment and Education of Autistic and Related
Communicatively Handicapped Children. The child's parents
preferred a different program that promoted ‘discrete trials.’ In
fact, they enrolled their child at their own expense into such a
program, and were asking for reimbursement. The court's
decision found in favor of the school. The school was not
required to provide the requested program, but rather any
program as long as it had a ‘reasonable prediction’ of success”
(Hurwitz, 2008).

12. COURT RULINGS AND LEGISLATION
 Honig v. Doe (1988) set the precedence that students may not
face disciplinary removal from school for more than 10 days if
the behavior warranting suspension was a manifestation of
their disability (Zirkel, 2005).
 Southeastern Community College v. Davis (1979), Sutton v.
United Airlines (1999), Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams
(2002), PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001), and other decisions
have led to the evaluation of students under section
504/ADA’s definition of disability in situations where they do
not qualify for IEPs but do require specific accommodations
(Zirkel, 2005).
 IDEA is a spending legislation that allows federal funding if the
required conditions are met. The clear statement rule for
spending legislation was first established in the court’s
decision in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
(1984) (Seligmann, 2012).

13. CONCLUSION
 The evolution of the special education program is
ongoing and you are playing a pivotal role.
 Together, we will work to ensure that your child
receives the BEST education possible and the
HIGHEST chance of success.
 We are all advocates for YOUR child and we CAN
make a difference in his or her life.

14. REFERENCES
 Czapanskiy, K. S. (Mar 2014). Special kids, special parents,
special education. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform,
47(3), 733-790. EBSCOhost.
 Dinkelacker, J. (2016). Word cloud [Image]. Retrieved from:
http://www.defyingthespectrum.com/ieps-team/
 Dorn, S., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (Winter 1996). A historical
perspective on special education reform. Theory into Practice,
35(1). 12-19. EBSCOhost.
 Hurwitz, K. A. (Sep 2008). A review of special education law.
Pediatric Neurology, 39(3), 147-154. ScienceDirect.
 Seligmann, T. J. (Jan 2012). Sliding doors: The Rowley decision,
interpretation of special education law, and what might have
been. Journal of Law and Education, 41(1), 71-94. ProQuest.
 United States Department of Education (2016). IDEA: Sec. 300.8
child with a disability. Retrieved from:
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs,300,A,300%252E8,
 Zirkel, P. A. (Sept/Oct 2005). A primer of special education law.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 62-63. ProQuest.