Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (12)
Similar to The historyofspecialeducation
Similar to The historyofspecialeducation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The historyofspecialeducation
- 1. The History of Special Education Stacey Miller SPE/514 November 23, 2015 Professor Marilyn Rodgers
- 2. The History of Special Education For Parents of Special Education Students
- 3. Before 1940 • Persons with disabilities were excluded from society • Considered unable to learn 1940s to the 1960s • Society’s attitudes toward persons with disabilities shifted • Parent advocacy groups developed • Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) • Civil Rights Movement 1970s to the Present • Increases in court cases • Many new laws were enacted • Philosophy of inclusion develops
- 4. Landmark Court Decisions Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth (1971) Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972)
- 5. Landmark Legislation Public Law 94-142 Four Purposes 1. “to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them … a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs 2. “to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents … are protected 3. to assist states and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities 4. To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities” (Education for all Handicapped Children Act, 1975)
- 6. Landmark Legislation Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99-457) • Extended the guarantee to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to children with disabilities aged 3-5 • Established Early Intervention Programs (EIP) for infants and toddlers with disabilities aged 0-2 • Required the development of an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) for each family with an infant/toddler with disabilities • The label of “Developmentally delayed” was introduced
- 7. Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (Tech Act) • Provided funds to states for development of training and delivery systems for assistive technology devices and services • Mandated all states to develop “consumer responsive” programs of technology related services for individuals with disabilities of all ages • Defined Assistive Technology Devices and Services • Promoted availability and quality of AT devices • The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 affirmed the value of technology and extended funding for the fifty states and six territories o Promoted the national goal of developing permanent, comprehensive programs of technology related assistance • (Assistive Technology Legislation, 2005)
- 8. Landmark Legislation Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) PL 101-476 1990 • Enacted in 1990 and reauthorized in 1997 and 2004 • The EHA was renamed IDEA • Replaces the term “handicapped child” with child with a disability • Provides for transition services for students by age 16 by adding an individualized transition plan (ITP) • Extends eligibility to children with autism and traumatic brain injury • Defined Assistive Technology Devices for children with disabilities to be included in the IEP • Extends the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) to require the child, to the maximum extent appropriate, to be educated with peers without disabilities in the same grade level that he/she would be if no disability • Rehabilitation, counseling and social work were added to related services
- 9. The Six Major Principles of IDEA 1. Zero Reject 2. Nondiscriminatory Identification and Evaluation 3. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) 4. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 5. Due Process Safeguards 6. Parent and Student Participation and Shared Decision Making
- 10. Landmark Legislation 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Act (PL 105-17) Reauthorized • Students with disabilities required to participate in state and district- wide assessments • Transition planning age reduced to age 14 • Orientation and mobility included as a related service • Discretionary use of “developmentally delayed” label for students 3-9 • General educators are required to participate on IEP team • Students with disabilities are to have access to and participate in the general education curriculum
- 11. 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Act (PL 105-17) Reauthorized (continued) • Mediation is instituted to resolve disputes between the school and student/parents • Benchmarks and measurable annual goals are required • Students who break the student code of conduct can be removed from their current educational placement only after a due process hearing • The assistive technology needs of each learner must be assessed • Students expelled or suspended from school must be allowed to continue with IEP services • A greater variety of assessment tools and strategies are now allowed for initial evaluations and reevaluations
- 12. Landmark Legislation No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) • All students, including special education students, expected to demonstrate proficiency in math, reading and science • Required annual testing of all students in grades 3-8; students in grades 10-12 assessed at least once • Expectation that schools show adequate yearly progress with goal of 100% by 2014 • IEPs can exempt very few students from state and district wide achievement tests (Gargiulo, 2015)
- 13. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) (continued) • Test scores reported by student’s disability, SES, race, ethnicity, and English language proficiency • Goal to align special and general education into one delivery system educating all learners • Schools having difficulty in AYP provided technical and financial assistance • Three years of inadequate yearly progress required to offer supplemental services, examples are tutoring, after school classes and summer programs • Parents of students in “failing” school must be offered the opportunity to transfer to another private or parochial school • Public and parents must be informed of individual school performance and qualification of students • All elementary and secondary teachers expected to be “highly qualified by 2005
- 14. Evolving Terminology Times have changed for people with disabilities but language lags behind • Do not refer to a person’s disability unless it is relevant • Focus on the person not the disability or specific impairment • When referring to a person’s disability, use people first language • Do not describe a student as an epileptic, use a person who has epilepsy or • Use the term person who has a mental illness instead of mentally ill, crazy, or mental case • Do not use “normal” to describe persons who do not have a disability instead say persons without disabilities • Use disability rather than handicap when referring to a person’s disability • Handicap describes accessibility accommodations, for example handicap parking (Talking About Disability A Guide to Using Appropriate Language, 2015)
- 15. Terminology • Children who deviate from the norm to such an extent that special education services are needed are referred to as Exceptional Children (Children with exceptionalities) • This may be due to significant physical, sensory, cognitive, or behavioral characteristics. • Gifted students are also included in the Exceptional Children designation because of their higher than normal intellectual ability • A child with a disability is first and foremost a person, and has much in common with all peers (Gargiulo, 2015)
- 16. Resources for More Information Some Laws & Court Rulings of Importance http://faculty.knox.edu/jvanderg/201_Website_S_08/CourtrulingsreEduc.html National Association of Parents with Children in Special Education http://www.napcse.org My Child’s Special Needs Page that contains many links to information and resources http://www2.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/edpicks.jhtml
- 17. References Assistive Technology Legislation. (2005). Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://atto.buffalo.edu/registered/ATBasics/ Foundation/Laws/atlegislation.php#TRAID Gargiulo, R.M. (2015). Special education in contemporary society: An introduction to exceptionality (5th Ed.). Sage: Thousand. Oaks, CA. Girl with Down Syndrome [Pic]. (2015). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http:// www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/03/parents-of-unborn-babies- with-disabilities-often-experience-great-pressure-to-abort/ #.VlHgxYT72To Mainstreaming vs Inclusion. (2015). Retrieved November 20, 2015, from http://faculty.knox.edu/jvanderg/201_Website_S_08/ Inclusion.html Sec. 300.8 Child with a disability. (2005). Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,regs, 300,A,300%2E8
- 18. References Simone, J. (2012). Addressing The Marginalized Student: The Secondary Principal’s Role In Eliminating Deficit Thinking. Retrieved November 20, 2015, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/ bitstream/handle/2142/31100/Simone_Joseph.pdf?sequence=1 Spaulding, Lucinda S. and Keith, Deanna L. Dr., " e History of Special Education: Lessons from the Past, Implications for the Future" (2010). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 158. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.liberty.edu/educ_fac_pubs/158 Thirty-five Years of Progress in Educating Children With ... (2010, November 1). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ osers/idea35/history/idea-35-history.pdf Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2009). IDEA: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Retrieved November 20, 2015, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/idea.lre.fape.htm
Editor's Notes
- Before the 1940s, persons with disabilities were mainly placed in institutions for long term custodial care. They were considered as not being able to learn or to benefit from education. Society generally looked upon them as weak-minded, insane, disgusting, crippled and idiotic. During the period from the 1940s to the 1960s, parents began to question whether placing their child with a disability in an institution for long-term custodial are was the only or best option. Many decided to keep their children home and educate them in local settings. Parents joined together as activists forming advocacy organizations such as the National Association for Retarded Children, United Cerebral Palsy, National Association for Gifted Children, and the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. Lawsuits were filed in order to gain educational rights for students with disabilities, and legislation was enacted as a response. For example, in 1954 the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas it was decided that the racial segregation of students is unconstitutional contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment (Gargiulo, 2015). The ruling stated that state sanctioned segregation based solely on a person’s unalterable characteristic, for example race, gender, disability, was unconstitutional (Spaulding & Keith, 2010). This ended the concept of “separate but equal” schools for white and black students. Parents used this as a precedent for arguing that children with disabilities cannot be excluded from a public education. Precedents established by Brown are the basis for most of later litigation and legislation affecting special education (Gargiulo, 2015). The US civil rights movement of the 1960s helped to obtain equal educational opportunities for persons with disabilities, and its success affected the US at the state, local and national levels (Gargiulo, 2015). A gradual shift in attitude by citizens and professionals was developing toward the perspective that people with disabilities are capable of growth and development. The idea that giving appropriate educational and community opportunities to persons with disabilities could help them to become valuable, contributing members of society saw a boom in creation of new laws and many court cases were heard regarding persons with disabilities. The 1970s to the present has brought a boom in the creations of new laws regarding persons with disabilities. Also, there was a shift in thinking that students with disabilities are better able to learn when they are included with non-disabled peers in age appropriate classrooms in local schools. This also benefits non-disabled students by decreasing stereotypes and fostering relationships among disabled and non-disabled peers. We will now examine the events of the 1970s to the present in more detail.
- Landmark court decisions further advanced increased educational opportunities for children with disabilities. For example, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972) established that it is illegal to exclude children with disabilities from public schools and affirmed the responsibility of states and localities to educate children with disabilities. These court decision’s not only affirmed the right of every child with a disability to be educated as based in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they also provided the basis for the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Spaulding & Keith, 2010). This act is now known as Public Law 94-142 or IDEA.
- In 1975, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) (PL 94-142) was passed. This landmark legislation ensure a free and appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. PL 94-142 had a positive, dramatic impact on our nation’s children (Thirty-five Years of Progress in Educating Children With ... , 2010). This law was passed by Congress because of their concern for the 1 million children with disabilities who had been excluding altogether from the education system, and the other children with disabilities who had only limited access and were being denied an appropriate education (Thirty-five Years of Progress in Educating Children With ... , 2010). (Read through the slide) “Changes built into the law were efforts to improve how children with disabilities were identified and educated, to evaluate the success of these efforts, and to provide due process protections for children and families (Thirty-five Years of Progress in Educating Children With ... , 2010). The efforts in PL 94-142 acted as guidance for advancing the education of children with disabilities over the next quarter century. EHA guaranteed a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities aged 5-21, special education and related services must be provided by the school to parents at no cost, the education must be appropriate whether regular or special education and designed to meet students’ individual educational needs (Special Education Laws, 2005). An Individualized Education Program for each eligible child must be developed based on multi-disciplinary assessments. The IEP should state specific special education and other services to be provided to the child. In addition, all students with disabilities must be educated in the least restrictive educational environment. Parental rights of parents include a right to participate in decisions related to identification, evaluation, and placement of their child. Due process procedures must be allowed so that parents can exercise their right to appeal. Also, this law authorized incentive funding to help states and local schools to implement PL 94-142.
- (Read through slide) A child with a disability aged three through nine may be experiencing a developmental delay. This includes “a child with a disability who is experiencing developmental delays as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in one or more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development or adaptive development, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services [34 CFR S300.8(b)]” (Sec. 300.8 Child with a disability, 2005).
- The federal government strengthened the educational rights of persons with disabilities by recognizing and the potential of Assistive Devices and mandating their use to increase the participation and independence of life activities (Assistive Technology Legislation, 2005). This opened up the market for assistive devices to be engineered and provided to all persons with disabilities including children. This initiative provided the basis for devices to increase the participation of students with disabilities in the general classroom.
- IDEA was enacted in 1990 and reauthorized in 1997 and 2004. Amendments were added to EHA and added many components to the law. (Read through the slide) Another significant change is the state’s immunity from lawsuits for violating IDEA repealed (Gargiulo, 2015). This was to increase accountability.
- Zero Reject Schools must educate all children with disabilities Each state must have a Child Find System that locates, identifies, and evaluates all children from birth to age 21 who have disabilities or who are suspected of having disabilities Nondiscriminatory Identification and Evaluation Protection in evaluation procedures provides that schools use nonbiased, multi-factored methods of determining if a child has a disability, and if so whether special education is needed Must not discriminate on the basis of race, culture, or native language Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) All children with disabilities must receive a free, appropriate education without cost to the parents An IEP must be developed and implemented to meet the student’s unique educational needs IEP must specify the child’s unique educational needs, state present levels of performance, identify measurable annual goals and short term objectives, and describe the specific, special education and related services that are to be provided Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Students with disabilities must be educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate In 1991, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court stated the purpose of mainstreaming in the LRE was to prevent schools from segregating handicapped student from the general student body (Wright & Wright, 20090. In 1997, the same court affirmed that the LRE provision of IDEA that mainstreaming provides social benefits for both children with disabilities and their non-disabled peers (Wright & Wright, 2009) Mainstreaming means that a student with disabilities is moved out of both special education self-contained classrooms and pull out programs and putting the student in a regular classroom (Mainstreaming vs Inclusion, 2015) Inclusion means that children with disabilities are included in regular education classrooms. (Mainstreaming vs Inclusion, 2015) In some situations special education teachers come into the general education classroom to work with students with disabilities Part of the special education responsibility is turned over to the general education teacher In other situations, students with disabilities are pulled out for varying amounts of time during the school day Due Process Safeguards Parental consent must be obtained for initial and all later evaluations and placement decisions about special ed Schools must maintain confidentiality of all records about a child with disabilities and make records available to parents An independent evaluation at public expense is available to parents who disagree with the results of an evaluation A due process hearing may be requested by the parents when the school and the parents of a child with a disability disagree on the identification, evaluation, placement or provision of a free, appropriate education and related services for the child. States must offer parents the chance to resolve the dispute by mediation by a third party Parent and Student Participation and Shared Decision Making Parents, and when appropriate, the student’s input and preferences must be taken into account when considering IEP goals and objectives, related service needs and placement
- 1997 IDEA (PL 105-17) is reauthorized (Read through slide) The rights of students with disabilities are extended by seeking assurance that all students will have access to the general curriculum. The law asks schools to consider Assistive Technology Devices and Services on the IEPs of all students. It allows the use of school bought AT in a child’s home or other settings. Orientations and mobility services are added to the list of related services for students who have visual impairments or are blind, and other students who may require instruction in traveling to and from school and around the school facility.
- (Read through slide)
- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110) was enacted in 2001 to close the achievement gap between middle class White students and low income minority students (Simone, 2012). Deficit thinking is the belief that students from low income and linguistically and culturally diverse communities cannot reach academic proficiency levels that white students can achieve. Many members of society in the US used to feel, or even now still do, that schools cannot do much to “fix” these students so schools provide them with interventions to help them fit into the dominant school culture (Simone, 2012). NCLB changes this outdated, prejudiced belief by mandating that all students are exposed to the general curriculum and its goals and standards. Differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all students is becoming the standard instructional strategy. (Read through slide)
- (continue reading slides) The expectation for all students is that effective instructional strategies can make up for a student’s disability (Gargiulo, 2015). This puts greater responsibilities on both general and special education teachers to improve students’ scores on standardized tests. Greater emphasis is being put on exposing special education students to the general education curriculum, and aligning IEP goals with the standards of general education.
- The policy of Normalization stated that mainstreaming people with disabilities into society and emphasized that they should be offered “normal life routine, normal developmental experiences, independent choices, and the right to live, work and play in normal surroundings” (Winzer, 1993, p. 381).