Читать книгу Creating Effective IEPs - Nancy Burton - Страница 9

The court system in the United States has had a tremendous impact on the field of special education. Judicial decisions have provided both guidance and structure to an educational system that has historically been discriminatory, elitist, and exclusive in many of its practices. Students with disabilities were typically denied access to education and were, instead, institutionalized and tucked away from society’s view—a practice that was, at one time, supported by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, many of these practices were deemed unconstitutional in the late 1950s when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the desegregation of schools in Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954). Although the case focused specifically on the discrimination of black students who were denied access to the same education as white students, its ruling has had a far-reaching impact on the field of education—including the field of special education. In fact, it is safe to say that the court ruling in this case set the precedent of equal opportunity to all students—including students with special learning needs.

Many of the court cases that helped shape the field of special education as we know it today were decided prior to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, referred to more often as PL 94-142. Three Supreme Court decisions that have provided both the justification and foundation for the current Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004)—known as IDEA 2004—are the following:

 Diana v. State Board of Education (1970): Students must be tested in their primary language as well as in English. Students may not be placed in special education classes based on culturally biased IQ tests.Impact: Provided foundation for nondiscriminatory testing and assessment for special education.

 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972): States must guarantee children with intellectual disabilities (ages 6–21) a free public education. Additionally, students must be placed in the most integrated environment; parents’ rights to participate in educational decisions affecting their child were established; the practice of “child-find” was created.Impact: Forerunner to free, appropriate public education, due process rights of parents and students, and inclusion.

 Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972): The ruling in this case established the constitutional right of children with disabilities to a public education. It also stipulated that their education must be matched to their needs—including the provision of specialized instruction.Impact: Expanded educational planning and the designing of instruction to the creation of individualized education plans.

Documented efforts to provide programs to address the needs of individuals with disabilities can be found as early as the late 1870s through the early 1970s. In fact, there are several examples of federal legislation that was designed to address the needs of children with disabilities including mental retardation (currently referred to as intellectual disability), the deaf and hard of hearing and the visually impaired. Yet, none offered the mandate of an individualized plan.

Examples of some of the more significant legislation that emerged from as far back as the late 1870s through the early 1970s include these:

 PL 45-486: Act to Promote the Education of the Blind (1879). This act authorized funds for the American Printing House for the Blind.

 PL 85-905: The Captioned Films Acts of 1958 supported the production and distribution of accessible films.

 PL 86-158: The Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 helped train leaders to educate children with mental retardation.

 PL 87-276: The Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961 trained instructional personnel for children who were deaf and hard of hearing.

 PL 89-10: The Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (1965) and PL 89-313: The State Schools Act (1965) both provided states with direct grant assistance to help educate children with disabilities.

 PL 90-538: The Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968 and PL 92-424: The Economic Opportunities Amendments of 1972 authorized support for exemplary early childhood programs and increased Head Start enrollment for young children with disabilities.

Admittedly there are many other legislative mandates that had some measure of impact on the creation of special education, but none impacted the field of education more than the passage of PL 94-142: Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. In fact, few pieces of legislation since have had as much impact on the lives of individuals with disabilities as PL 94-142.

The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975 was developed around four guiding principles:

1 Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and Individualized Education Plan (IEP)“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”§300.101 of federal regulations define FAPE asGeneral. A free appropriate public education must be available to all children residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school, as provided for in §300.530(d).FAPE for children beginning at age 3. (1) Each State must ensure that—(i) The obligation to make FAPE available to each eligible child residing in the State begins no later than the child’s third birthday; and(ii) An IEP or an IFSP is in effect for the child by that date, in accordance with §300.323(b).(2) If a child’s third birthday occurs during the summer, the child’s IEP Team shall determine the date when services under the IEP or IFSP will begin.Children advancing from grade to grade. (1) Each State must ensure that FAPE is available to any individual child with a disability who needs special education and related services, even though the child has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.(2) The determination that a child described in paragraph (a) of this section is eligible under this part, must be made on an individual basis by the group responsible within the child’s LEA for making eligibility determinations.

2 Due Process“To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected”

3 Federal Funding“To assist states and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities”

4 Accountability through Assessment“To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities”

Since 1975, the EHA has been amended or reauthorized multiple times.

 PL 99-457: The EHA Amendments of 1986 represent the first expansion of provisions mandated by the EHA. The EHA Amendments mandated that state provisions of programs and services be extended from only including school-age children with disabilities to including children ages 3–5. Additionally, The EHA Amendments permitted early intervention services for infants and toddlers from birth through age 21. In lieu of an IEP, the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) was created to identify and meet the unique needs of infants and toddlers with a disability and their families.

 PL 101-476: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990) not only amended the EHA, but it also renamed the legislation. Two specific categories of exceptionalities, autism and traumatic brain injury, were added to the list of disabilities addressed.

 PL 105-17: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997) was the reauthorization of IDEA 1990. It supported initiatives for transition services from secondary to postsecondary life for students. The IEP must include an Individualized Transition Plan for each student not later than age 16.

 PL 108-446: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) is the current law that stipulates specific guidelines for special education programs. As with previous reauthorizations, IDEA 2004 continues to maintain the original four guiding principles.