According to the democratic theory postulated by Amy Gutmann, citizens should be entitled to make rules that govern educational policies at national levels. These policies should reflect the ongoing scrutiny of the liberal principles of nonrepression (education may not proscribe deliberation pertaining to any particular set of rational ideas) and nondiscrimination (parents nor educators may espouse practices that may deter children from partaking in a democratic education). Importantly, the discretional power of these citizens should be constrained by those fundamental principles of nondiscrimination and nonrepression. The realm of special education and its historical background in conjunction with the many facets of nondiscrimination should be the focal point. Thus, it is my hope that this paper will give students, parents, and educators the knowledge and insight into the issues i.e. court cases, which surround nondiscrimination and its key ideologies in the domain of special education reform. To understand how special education reform emerged, we need to bethink some of the first federal laws of the United States that were designed to assist people with disabilities. Specifically, there was a federal law passed by the Fifth Congress dating back to 1798. This law authorized a Maine Hospital Service later known as the Public Health Service to bestow medical services to disabled sailors (Braddock, 1987). Unfortunately, up until World War II there were only a paltry number of federal laws able to assist persons with disabilities. Only war veterans with service-related disabilities were allowed assistance (NICHY, 1997). This purported that, for nearly all of United States history, institutions i.e. schools were permitted to... ... middle of paper ... ...cided in its ruling that all students including those with disabilities be provided a publicly supported education. The court also adjured that the board of education allocate its funds equitably so that all children receive a free and appropriate education. Lastly, the court ordered the board to provide due process safeguards in the event the school attempt to alter a child’s educational status i.e. reassignment, transfers, suspension, and expulsion. In response to the seminal cases elucidated above, specifically PARC and Mills and impending litigation, Congress began passing new laws to further augment the rights of those students with disabilities. These new laws, most notably, utilized many of the legal principles that were integrated in those preceding suits insofar that students would be entitled a free and appropriate public education.
The proposed expulsions and suspensions from their disability behaviors deprived them of their right to a free and appropriate public education in accordance to the EHA. The Judge ordered the school district from making other disciplinary acts other than a two-to-five-day suspension against any disabled child for disability-related behaviors and ensured that the “stay-put” provision would be in place and no student would be removed. This went to the Ninth-Circuit appeal where the previous decision was affirmed and modified to allow up to a ten-day suspension.
General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students.
The Gaskin Settlement Agreement is an agreement between a group of families and advocacy organizations who filed a class action lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) on behalf of a group of children with disabilities in 1994. This agreement does not change a student’s placement, program, or IEP in any manner. Only the IEP team has the authority to make modifications that will impact a student’s IEP. The main goal of this settlement is to make sure that IEP teams will determine if the goals in a student’s IEP may be implemented in a general education setting with supplementary aids and services prior to considering an environment that is more restrictive in nature. The elements of this case were designed to help increase the capacity of school districts to provide related services, SDI that is appropriate, supplementary aids and services, and supports to students who have disabilities that are placed in general education classrooms. The PDE lists many important elements of the Settlement Agreement to be aware of...
This case is significant because of the courts’ strict interpretation of the law. A summary reading of IDEA would lead many parents to believe that a school must accommodate each child who is disabled by all means necessary. However, alternative placements can also be considered free appropriate pubic education. The court stated that the Urbans never argued against the quality of education Gregory received at Golden High. This is significant because if quality had been considered then FAPE could have come into play. As it stands now the court’s ruling and interpretation of the law further defines
Hehir, T. (2009). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Individuals with disabilities have laws in place to protect them and their rights as Americans. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act “requires public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs” (Us department of education, 2011). Schools have resources available to help educators meet the needs of any individual with a disability.
These children were now being seen as a group in which society had obligations to provide “normalisation” (Bowe, 2007, p.45) and would lead to a revolutionary law being introduced in America. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975, of which Australia became a signatory. (AIHW, 2004). This Act mandated “that all school-age children with disabilities must receive a free appropriate public education” (Bowe, 2007, p. 101) “in the least restrictive environment” (Bowe, 2007, p. 5). For the first time in a century, Australia no longer segregated these children into an isolated “special facility” (Allen & Cowdery, 2012, p. 8). State governments established special education units within mainstream schools (AIHW, 2004). This is referred to as Integrated education and is described by Talay-Ongan & Cooke (2005), as an environment “where children with similar disabilities in special classes share the normal school environment, and utilise some classes (e.g., art or physical education) or the playground that all children enjoy.” In 1992, the Disability Discrimination Act was introduced in Australia which specifically covered the topic of Education and in 2005 a set of supplementary standards was passed which specifies the support schools are required to provide to students with a
The education system is arguably the most beneficial system in the world; however, it also contains many controversial practices. Proper funding, discrimination, and curriculum are just some of the problems in today’s education system. Everyone has a different opinion about what is best for our children and it is impossible to please everyone. As long as the educational system is in tact, then there will be confusion and debate within the system and its’ administrators. The only thing that can be done is attempting to make it so that everyone will benefit equally, but this is much more difficult than one would assume. I will focus on the aspect of discrimination on minorities within special education and more specifically the following questions: Does the special education system discriminate against minorities? If so, how? What can be done, if anything, to correct or improve this system?
Nappi court case went to trial in the district court. The court found that ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was Kathy Stuart. The judge explained that expulsion would reject Stuart from a free and appropriate education guaranteed to special education students in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The expulsion of handicapped children not only jeopardizes their right to an free and appropriate education, but it is also inconsistent with the procedures established by the Handicapped Act for changing the placement of disruptive children. Leagle (1985). STUART v. NAPPI (610 F.Supp. 90). Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985700610FSupp90_1677/STUART%20BY%20AND%20THROUGH%20STUART%20v.%20NAPPI. The court said that expelling students with disabilities will limit their availability to an education in the least restrictive environment. However, the court did rule that school officials could substitute an expulsion with suspension when dealing with a student who met the criteria to be covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, the court ruled that a school district could suspend a student from school for a maximum of only ten days. The court also determined that a school district could also hold a meeting to change the placement of the student if a more restrictive environment was needed. First, school authorities can take swift disciplinary measures, such as suspension, against disruptive handicapped children. Secondly, a (special education committee) can request a change in the placement of handicapped children who have demonstrated that their present placement is inappropriate by disrupting the education of other children. The Handicapped Act thereby affords schools with both short-term and long-term methods of dealing with handicapped children who are behavioral problems. Casetext (1978). STUART V. NAPPI, (D.CONN. 1978). Retrieved from
The defendant Rachel Holland was at the time a nine-year old girl with an intellectual disability with an I.Q. of 44 and an academic functioning level of a four-year old child. Rachel was described as being well behaved and popular with her second grade classmates. She enjoyed school and was motivated to learn. The plaintiff Sacramento Unified School District proposed to educate Rachel half time in a special education class, and half-time placement in a regular classroom. Rachel’s core classes such as Reading and Math services would be rendered in a special education class and classes such as PE, Music, Lunch, and Recess would be rendered in a general education classroom. Rachel’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) stressed language and communication goals such as speaking in four or five word sentences, initiating and terminating conversations, verbally stating name, developing twenty-four word sight vocabulary, counting to twenty-five, and printing first and last
Prior to 1975, educational options for a child living with a mental or physical disability were limited. The family of the handicapped child was most likely forced down an path that lead to the institutionalization of the child and distancing the child from the benefits of receiving a free and public education. It was after federal legislation passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) that monumental changes began to develop that allowed a better understanding of the needs and capabilities of people with various handicapping conditions. Soon after this legislation, Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for all Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 (EHA) would further increase the public awareness by providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children suffering from disabilities. Following the EHA legislation reformations concerning the education of disabled individuals would soon become numerous and legislative acts were passed enabling accommodations for disabled individuals in the fields of vocations and technology. In 1990, President Gerald Ford signed legislation replacing P.L. 94-142 with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA, 20 USC 1400). By definition, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation (US Department of Education, 2011).
In September 1973, President Richard M. Nixon signed into law HR 8070, sponsored by Rep. John Brandemas (D-IN). From a legal perspective, this represented a profound and historic shift in America’s disability policy. With the passage of Section 504 of HR 8070 (named The Rehabilitation Act of 1973), which banned discrimination on the basis of disability, this marked the first time people with disabilities were viewed as a group - a minority group. This Section also provided opportunities for children and adults with disabilities in education and employment and allowed for reasonable accommodations such as special study areas and assistance as needed for students with disabilities.
Under the 1944 Education Act children with special educational needs were defined in medical terms and categorised according to their disabilities. Many of those children were considered as ‘uneducable’ and were labelled as ‘maladjusted’ or ‘educationally sub-normal’, and they were given ‘special educational treatment’ in special schools or institutions. In these special schools (institutions) the rights of the children were not considered, as children were socially alienated from family and the society from where they lived. Though the grouping of children with similar disabilities looked positive in the past, such children were deprived their right to association with their peer...
What is special education? The common belief is that it a program only dedicated to helping students with disabilities, whether physical or mentally. This is not entirely accurate in regards of what special education is. While special education does provide assistance to students with disabilities ns meet their needs in quality education (Küpper 2009)—the program extends to all students facing difficulties keeping up with the pace of learning (Huerta 2009). This brings the next question onto the table: the importance of special education. Before 1970s, majority of students with disabilities were shun into isolation with little to no education in general classes (Bradley 2016). However, with the passage of Education for All Handicapped Children
Students with disabilities are far too frequently isolated and separated from the education system (Johnson). They are often provided a diluted, inferior education and denied meaningful opportunities to learn. There are many education rights for children with disabilities to protect them from discrimination, giving them a chance for equal opportunity to learn what other students are expected to learn.... ... middle of paper ... ...