3. Brown v. Board of Education -
1954
Terminology
Segregation & Emotional Impact
Restrictive Environment?
Environment denied
Society’s View
Exclusion is the current presiding rule
Significance
(Tangent, LLC, 2014)
Gateway for Civils Rights Movement in Education
Segregation deemed unconstitutional in schools
(Kinshasa, 2006)
4. Bureau of Education for
Handicapped - 1965
Terminology
Mandated v. volunteered
Restrictive Environment?
High restriction still in place
Society’s View
World events drew attention to improving education
for all students
Significance
First Federal program to support education for
children with disabilities
State funded programs established
(Jeffers, 1993)
5. PARC v. Pennsylvania -
1972
Terminology
Due Process Clause & Equal Protection Clause
Restrictive Environment?
Access to education still denied by majority
Society’s View
Viewpoint that children with disabilities are unable to
learn or fit in with ‘mainstream’ peers
Significance
Case finding: placement in regular classroom is
preferable to special education classroom
(Friend &Bursuck, 2012)
6. Mills v. D.C. Board of
Education - 1972
Terminology
Due Process Clause & Sufficient Funds
Restrictive Environment?
Students with disabilities denied public education
Society’s View
Schools chose to deny students based on lack of funding
Significance
Established precedence- schools cannot deny education due to
funding issues
(Gargiulo, 2012)
7. Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA) - 1975
Terminology
Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Restrictive Environment?
Students must be placed in the least
restrictive environment possible
Society’s View
States v. Federal gov’t disputed over the
implementation and extent of rights and services
Significance
Schools receiving federal funding must provide free
education for children with disabilities
8. Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)- 1990
Terminology:
CAT (computerized adaptive tests)
Cognitive disorders defined
Restrictive Environment?
Mandate required students with disability participate in
state assessments
Society’s View:
Schools did not value students with disabilities because
their ability could not be measured academically
Significance
Parents given right to sue if child’s services not met
State assessment allowed to be modified
(Turnball, 2005)
9. Americans with Disability Act
1990
Terminology
Permanent v. transitory
Restrictive Environment?
Creating accommodations such as wheelchair access
Society’s View
Initial unacceptance of making modifications in society
Significance
Right to attend public school
Protects the rights of all individuals with disabilities
(Wrightslaw: Special education law, 2004)
10. No Child Left Behind- 2001
Terminology:
Standards-based Education Reform
Restrictive Environment?
The standards test scores are all inclusive, but not
necessarily the environment
Society’s View
Schools felt this standards-based requirement unrealistic
Significance
Mandates that ALL students reach proficiency levels in
reading and math by 2014
(Kossar, Mitchem, & Ludlow, 2005)
12. References
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2012). Including students with special needs: A
practical guide for classroom teachers. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson
Gargiulo, R. M. (2012). Special education in contemporary society: An introduction to
exceptionality (4th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook
Collection database
Jeffers, J. T. (1993). An analysis of selected federal court decisions regarding special
education administration: Public policy and principles. (Order No. 9333179,
The University of Alabama at Birmingham). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses, , 719-719 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview
/304046057?accountid=458. (304046057)
13. References (part II)
Kinshasa, K. M. (2006). An appraisal of brown v. board of education, topeka KS.
(1954) and the montgomery bus boycott. Western Journal of Black Studies,
30(4), 16-23. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
200338638?accountid=458
Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow, B. (2005). No child left behind: A national study
of its impact on special education in rural schools. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 24(1), 3-8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/227212540?accountid=458
14. References (part III)
Tangent, LLC. (2014). Individuals, groups, & institutions. Retrieved from http://
wccushistory2.wikispaces.com/Individuals,+Groups,+%26+Institutions
Turnbull, H. R. III (2005). Individuals with disabilities education act reauthorization:
Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 2
6(6), 320-326. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/236325852?accountid=458
Weebly. (n.d.). Inclusive classrooms: A tool for teachers. Retrieved from http://tools
forinclusion.weebly.com/
Wrightslaw: Special education law. (2004, Spring). Palaestra, 20, 55. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/213173656?accountid=458
Editor's Notes
Today’s classroom is a vast improvement for children of all abilities compared to the classrooms a hundred years ago. Through a history of changing laws, education policies, and society’s beliefs, children have gained a right to learn in a respectful environment among their peers.
Several major events, such as the court case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, have helped evolve both school policy and our social mores in regards to personal rights and responsibility for educating students with disabilities. As we look at eight major events in the history of special education, four key factors help define the thoughts and ideals during the time of the event. We’ll discuss terminology used and accepted at that point in history, the level of restrictive environment, society’s views, and the significance of the event.
The Supreme Court voted on a landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Prior to this case, the majority of schools in the United States were segregated and did not consider the individual student to have rights. The court decision however proved that denying access to any public school based on race resulted in a negative emotional impact and deprived mental development. At this time, the public classroom environment was not required to support or provide services for students with disabilities. The classroom environment is at its most restrictive since schools are under no obligation to provide services, let alone education for students with disabilities (Kinshasa, 2006).
Society’s view of integrated classrooms varied depending on state or region in the United States; however, in general, integrated classrooms were not considered the norm for this time period. With exclusion as the presiding rule, Brown v. Board of Education paved the way for civil rights movement in education and proved segregation in schools as unconstitutional (Kinshasa, 2006). Following this court case, parents of children with disabilities argued that denial of a public education for his or her child was discriminatory.
Though the creation of the bureau opened the doors to public funding and support for special education, this did not mandate schools by federal or state statutes. Schools volunteering to provide education for students with disabilities now at least had a means to create a learning environment more conducive to individual needs. For the few schools that did provide a special education program, students with disabilities were usually separated from their peers and placed in a ‘special education classroom’ (Jeffers, 1993).
Following major world events such as WWII and the Cold War, the federal government and politicians began placing a higher focus on the future of our society by improving the education system. The Bureau of Education for Handicapped was the first Federal program of its kind to support children with disabilities and eventually led to the development of stated funded programs as well (Jeffers, 1993).
The case PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Pennsylvania represented a class action lawsuit whereby 14 students were denied a free public education. The parents were able to claim that their child was denied Due Process and Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. At this time, access to a public education for children with disabilities was still denied by the majority of schools. Society’s view was still accustomed to the idea of placing children in a special institution or segregated school. Many educators felt that children with disabilities were unfit to learn in a mainstream class environment with his or her peers. The case concluded that the children’s 14th Amendment rights had been denied and furthermore found that children with disabilities should be placed in the regular classroom versus a special education classroom or institution (Friend & Bursuck, 2012).
In the same year as PARC v. Pennsylvania, another critical case in the history of special education helped expand the rights of children with disabilities. In the class action lawsuit, Mills v. D.C. Board of Education, seven children with disabilities were represented to prove undue process of his or her 14th Amendment rights. The D.C. schools claimed students could receive educational services, however the schools lacked the necessary funding to do so. The court found in favor of the children citing that no school can use insufficient funding or misappropriations as an excuse for providing a free public education for children with disabilities. This finding established a new precedence for public schools’ responsibilities and ensured special education a place in public schools (Gargiulo, 2012).
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) established specific guidelines such as requiring schools to create an individualized education program (IEP) for students with disabilities. The EAHCA also mandated that these children must be placed in the least restrictive environment possible. Though this mandate required significant improvement in rights and services, the conditions of how to implement the act was unclear. This led to disputes over whether state or federal funding should be responsible which only further delayed the progress for improved special education. The disputes would be settled over time as this act became reinstated as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and it finally mandated that schools must provide a free education for children with disabilities if they are to receive federal funding (Jeffers, 1993).
In 1990, IDEA, established from EAHCA, provided school reform which would give children with disabilities the right to a free education and services based on their specific disability. Prior to IDEA, approximately only one in five children with disabilities were allowed to attend public school and receive services. Many educators felt these exceptional students could not be tested by state standards tests. New policies allowed for CAT (computerized adaptive tests) allowing students to be tested with his or her peers. Many disorders and disabilities had not yet been defined restricting some students from receiving benefits. IDEA helped develop a thorough and defined list of disabilities to create a more inclusive list (Turnball, 2005).
As CAT tests developed with increasing flexibility in implementation, the restrictive environment barriers were lowered. Students with disabilities were now mandated to participate in state assessments. Prior to IDEA, schools did not value students with disabilities because assessments were not in place to measure his or her academic skill. IDEA provided a significant step in the history of special education by giving parents the right to sue if child’s services were not met and also allowed for modified state assessments (Turnball, 2005).
In 1990, the Americans with Disability Act passed and was the most comprehensive law in history for civilians with disabilities. The act first established the difference between permanent disability and transitory. For example, someone in need of corrective lenses or whom chose to abuse his or her own body with drugs was considered to have a transitory disability and did not fall under this act. Only individuals with permanent or long-term disabilities were to received the benefits and services this act would provide for (Wrightslaw: Special education law, 2004).
Prior to the ADA, individuals with physical disabilities did not have access to many public places such as government buildings, work, school, or shopping stores. The act ensured public facilities, including schools, make accommodations such as wheelchair access and hand rails. Though society initially was unaccepting of this large change, the results improved with time as everyone benefited from more accessible public places. The ADA protected the right of students with disabilities to attend public school and protected the rights of the individual (Wrightslaw: Special education law, 2004).
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates of 2001 required schools to bring all students to proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014. Though the intent of NCLB was to improve education standards for all students, this standards-based education reform did not provide the support to meet its objectives. Test scores from all students, including IEPs (Individual Education Plan), were to meet the minimum requirements set by the states. Schools felt this standards-based requirement unrealistic. The NCLB Act did however show a social and academic desire to improve the education standards for all students, including those with disabilities (Kossar, Mitchem, & Ludlow, 2005).
As a result of long court battles and ongoing federal legislation, all students are now provided the least restrictive learning environment in history. Each major event created a small stepping stone enabling students with disabilities the right to a free public education with their peers. As terminology and society’s views continue to evolve and change for the better, our children’s education and well-being improves. With the quickly evolving progress of technology and its implementation in the classroom, students of diverse backgrounds and abilities will gain the individualized care and instruction he or she desires.