SPED HISTORICAL LAW

Teacher DODIE M. DE CASTROSPED Teacher 1

Exclusionary Practices Upheld

1893- Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld that exclusion from the public schools of a student who was mentally retarded on the basis that he was “too weak minded” to profit from instruction.

1919- Wisconsin Supreme Court also upheld the exclusion of a student with a form of paralysis (normal IQ) but whose condition caused him to drool and make facial contortions. He was excluded because school officials claimed his physical appearance nauseated teachers and other students, required an undue amount of time, and he had negative impact on discipline and progress of the school.

1934- Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ruled that the state statute mandating compulsory attendance for children 6-18 gave the State Dept. of Ed. the authority to exclude certain students.

1969- State of North Carolina made it a crime for parents to persist in forcing the attendance of a child with disabilities after the child’s exclusion from public school.

Civil Rights Movement

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)– Four desegregation cases that were consolidated and heard as one by U.S. Supreme Court.

– Illustrates principle that Federal Constitution as interpreted by U.S. Supreme Court is supreme law of land.

– Ruling gave comfort and support to civil rights activists.

– Even though, U.S. Constitution does not refer to a public education, the principles of 5th amendment (due process) and 14th amendment (equal protection) of U.S. Constitution have significant effect on public education.

Civil Rights MovementBrown v. Board of Education (1954)– Landmark school desegregation case, separate is NOT equal.• The US Supreme Court ruled that state-sanctioned segregation solely on the basis of a persons unalterable characteristics (e.g., race, disability) was unconstitutional.

– Central to this ruling was the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, found in the Fourteenth Amendment.• States may not deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection under the law

– Affected many aspects of educational law and procedure and laid the foundation for future right to education cases on behalf of students with disabilities.

– The basic truth of the ruling was viewed by many to be equally applicable to those denied equal opportunity to an education because of a disability.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

Wolf v. State of Utah (1969)– One of the first court cases decided in favor of students with disabilities.

– Lawsuit filed on behalf of two children with mental retardation who had been denied admission to the public schools. The children had been enrolled in a private day-care at their parent’s expense.

– The court in Wolf declared that children who were mentally retarded were entitled to a free appropriate public education under the state constitution.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

Culturally & Linguistically Biased Testing• Diana v. State Board of Education (1970 & 1973) -Spanish-speaking student was placed in a class for the mentally retarded on the basis of an IQ test administered in English. Courts ruled that placement in segregated programs on the basis of culturally biased assessments was prohibited.

• Larry P. v. Riles (1972, 74, 79, & 84)-In this case the courts held that standardized IQ tests that had not been validated for black students caused a disproportionate placement of minority students in special education classes.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

Mills v. Board of Education (1972)

-Class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of children who had been excluded from the public schools in the District of Columbia after having been classified as being behavior problems, having epilepsy, physical impairments, mentally retardation, emotional disturbances, and hyperactivity.

-Suit based on 14th Amendment, students improperly excluded and denied due process.

-The court ruled that the school district was required to the US Constitution, the DC Code, and its own regulation to provide a publicly supported education to all children, including those with disabilities. District must expend funds equitably. Ordered due process safeguards before any child was excluded.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

– Class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all individuals with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 who had been excluded from the public schools. The exclusions were justified on the basis of four state statutes that relieved the state of any obligation to educate a child:

• certified as uneducable and untrainable by a school psychologist,• allowed postponement of admission to any child who had not attained a mental age of 5,• excluded from compulsory education if found to not benefit from education, and• defined compulsory ed. age as 8 - 17.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

• Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) (Cont’d)– Dispute settled by a stipulation and consent agreement between the parties that was endorsed by the court.• No child with mental retardation, or thought to be mentally retarded could be assigned to a special education program or be excluded from the public schools without due process.• Pennsylvania had an obligation to provide all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 to 21 with FAPE.

Equal Educational Opportunity Movement

Language Minorities– Lau v. Nichols (1974) - A class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Chinese students in the San Francisco schools system who did not speak English and who had not been provided with English language instruction.

– The US Supreme Court held that the failure to provide remedial English language instruction to non-English-speaking students violated section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1974 and denied the students a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education.

– The Court held that, as a recipient of federal funds, the school district was bound by Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare regulation that required school districts to take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies.

Legislative Mandates

PL 89-750: Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (1966).– Established a program of federal grants to the states that would assist them in initiating, expanding, and improving programs and projects for the education of children with disabilities.

PL 91-230: Amendments to ESEA (1970)– Repealed the 1966 law but established a grant program that had a similar purpose. The law tried to stimulate the states to develop special education resources and personnel.

Legislative Mandates

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1996)– Civil rights legislation that specifically guarantees the rights of individuals with disabilities. Section 504 effectively prohibits discrimination by any recipient of federal funds in the provision of services or employment.

– An individual is considered to have a handicap under section 504 if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more or the person’s major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having an impairment.

Major life activities are “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.”

Legislative MandatesPL 93-380 (1974)• By 1974 Congress was dissatisfied with states progress and

was confronted with court’s decisions (PARC v. Penn., 1972; Mills v. DC, 1972). By enacting this law Congress had 4 outcomes in mind:– It wanted to enforce the 14th amendment and equal protection guarantee on behalf of students with disabilities

– Wanted to help states carry out their own self-imposed duties reflected in their constitutions and statutes

– It wanted to overcome the practices of total and functional exclusion; legal rights of students with disabilities

– It wanted to initiate a “system change” process, reforming the school system to accommodate students with disabilities.

Legislative Mandates

PL 93-380- The Education Amendments of 1974 Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Provided funding to a variety of programs for children who were disadvantaged and for students with disabilities. Required that each state receiving federal special education funding establish a goal of providing full educational opportunities for all children with disabilities. The amendment acknowledged:

– FAPE,– Procedural safeguards,– LRE,– Fed Funds

Legislative Mandates

PL 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975)

– FAPE,– Procedural safeguards/Due Process,– LRE,– Nondiscriminatory evaluation and placement– individualized education program (IEP)– Amended in 1986

PL 99-457 Handicapped Children Protection Act: (1986) amendment to EAHCA: added Part H (infants & toddlers & Award of attorney fees when prevailing)

Legislative Mandates

The Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Act of 1986 (ITDA)– Part H of law- in 1997, became Part C

– Infants and toddlers with disabilities defined as children birth through age 2 who need early intervention services because they are experiencing developmental delays or have a diagnosed physical or mental condition that puts them at risk of developing developmental delays.

– Early intervention services are defined as developmental services provided at public expense and public supervision designed to meet the child’s physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional, & adaptive needs.

– Lead agency assumes responsibility for delivering services…may be SEA, Welfare dept., health dept. or other unit of government

– Strong interagency cooperation

Legislative MandatesPL 101-476• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] (1990)

– Changed language of law: • person first language, handicap to disability

– added students with autism and TBI were added as a distinct class entitled to the law’s benefits.

– required a plan for transition on every student’s IEP by age 16.

Legislative MandatesPL 101-336• The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990• Expanded civil rights/non-discrimination protection for

individuals with disabilities in the public and private sector.• Protected individuals: as defined in Section 504 • Employment discrimination: prohibits discrimination

against a person with a disability who is “otherwise qualified.”• Public services and state/local governments• Public accommodations and services operated by private

entities• Transportation• Telecommunications

Legislative Mandates

PL 105-17The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997

– Restructured the law

– Changes in the IEP team and content of the IEP

– States must establish a voluntary mediation system

– Added language regarding the discipline of students.

Recent Federal Involvement

No Child Left Behind Act (2002)– Expanded role of Federal government in public education by holding SEAs, LEAs, and schools accountable for producing measurable gains in reading and math.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)

– SPED must focus on results rather than process– SPED focus on prevention rather than failure– SPED and Gen. Ed. Must focus on scientifically-based instruction.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

– Builds on NCLB– Changes in IEP, Discipline, and identification of students with LD.

Principle of Dual Accommodations

• Entitlement Laws: (IDEA) creates benefits that help the person respond to disability challenges inherent in the person. These interventions increase the likelihood that the person will be able to accommodate to the demands a nondisabled world imposes.

• Antidiscrimination Laws: (504) requires the nondisabled world to accommodate to the person who has a disability.

• 2-Part Accommodation: person accommodates to the world and world accommodates to the person.

Major Principles of Disability Law• Disabled but not unable• Developmental model: all can learn and be educated• Independence, Productivity, & Inclusion• Empowerment• Privacy and Confidentiality• Consent, Choice, & ClientParticipation• Liberty• Protection from Harm• Individualized and Appropriate Services

• Priority Based on Severity• Productivity• Inclusion• Family Integrity and Unity• Service Coordination andCollaboration• Cultural Responsiveness • Accountability • Prevention and Amelioration • Advocacy and Advocates • Normalization• Capacity-Based Services