Assign 1
see attachment title Assign.1 class2
Historical Perspective and Landmark Cases
This assignment assesses your ability to examine historical perspectives related to assessment and evaluation of students with mild to moderate disabilities and evaluate landmark cases that impact educational assessment and evaluation procedures for students with disabilities. This assessment also supports your achievement of Course Learning Outcomes 4 and 5 and the MASE Program Learning Outcomes 2 and 6.
Creating a more unbiased assessment process has culminated in several key court cases regarding the requirements for the assessment and evaluation process in special education. Because of those decisions, today, in order for a student to qualify for special education services, educational professionals must follow a comprehensive process that evaluates the whole child and uses a multidisciplinary approach. This includes assessment of all areas related to the suspected disability (Pierangelo & Guiliani, 2012). As a special educator, it is important for you to be familiar with the historical context of processes used in the assessment and evaluation of students with mild to moderate disabilities.
Instructions:
Using support from the required readings, the Instructor Guidance, and supplemental information derived from the discussions write a 3 page paper analyzing three key cases and the effect they have had on the field. These cases areHobson v. Hansen(Links to an external site.);Dina v. State Board of Education(Links to an external site.); andLarry P v. Wilson Riles(Links to an external site.).
Use the guidelines below for the content and written communication expectations. Before submission, review your assignment using theGrading Rubricto insure it meets the expectations for distinguished performance. If you have questions about the assignment or the rubric, please contact your instructor using the Ask Your Instructor discussion before the due date.
Content Expectations:
Your paper should include all the following elements:
An introduction describing the purpose of the paper.
One paragraph for each of the three above listed cases that includes:
A short description of the case, including each party’s stance.
A summary of the final court ruling for the case.
A succinct explanation of how the historical legal rulings for each case impacts current educational assessment and evaluation procedures for students with disabilities. You will have three paragraphs total in this section.
One paragraph that includes a concise comparison of the three cases, noting their differences and similarities.
A summative evaluation of the cumulative effect these cases have had on the field (one paragraph)
A conclusion that summarizes the main points of the paper and includes your personal perspective on the impact of these cases.
Written Communication Expectations:
Syntax and Mechanics:Exhibit meticulous use of grammar, spelling, organization, and usage throughout your submission.
Organization:Use the above listed guidelines for explicit sections/headings within your paper.
Paragraphs:Include separate headings for each required element in the narrative as listed above.
Source Requirement: Reference at least 3 scholarly sources including the course text in order to provide compelling evidence to support your ideas.
Page Requirement:3 pages not including the title and references pages.
Additional Page Requirement:Your submission must include a title and reference page.
APA format:All in text citations, page format and references must be written in APA 6th edition format. AssessmentinSpecialEducation:APracticalApproach
FourthEdition
RogerPierangelo
LongIslandUniversity
GeorgeA.Giuliani
HofstraUniversity
VicePresidentandEditorialDirector:JefferyW.Johnston
ExecutiveEditor:AnnCastelDavis
EditorialAssistant:PennyBurleson
VicePresident,DirectorofMarketing:MargaretWaples
MarketingManager:JoannaSabella
SeniorManagingEditor:PamelaD.Bennett
ProjectManager:SherylLangner
ProductionManager:LauraMesserly
SeniorArtDirector:JayneConte
CoverDesigner:SuzanneBehnke
CoverArt:Fotosearch
Full-ServiceProjectManagement:JyotsnaRishi,ElementLLC
Composition:ElementLLC
Printer/Binder:Courier/Westford
CoverPrinter:Courier/Westford
TextFont:TimesLTStd10/12
Creditsandacknowledgmentsformaterialborrowedfromothersourcesandreproduced,withpermission,inthistextbookappearontheappropriatepagewithinthetext.
EveryefforthasbeenmadetoprovideaccurateandcurrentInternetinformationinthisbook.However,theInternetandinformationpostedonitareconstantlychanging,soitisinevitablethatsomeoftheInternetaddresseslistedinthistextbookwillchange.
Copyright2012,2009,2006,2002byPearsonEducation,Inc.Allrightsreserved.PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.ThispublicationisprotectedbyCopyright,andpermissionshouldbeobtainedfromthepublisherpriortoanyprohibitedreproduction,storageinaretrievalsystem,ortransmissioninanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orlikewise.Toobtainpermission(s)tousematerialfromthiswork,pleasesubmitawrittenrequesttoPearsonEducation,Inc.,PermissionsDepartment,OneLakeStreet,UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey07458oryoumayfaxyourrequestto201-236-3290.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Pierangelo,Roger.
Assessmentinspecialeducation:apracticalapproach/Roger
Pierangelo,GeorgeA.Giuliani.4thed.
p.cm.
Includesindex.
ISBN-13:978-0-13-261326-2
ISBN-10:0-13-261326-3
1.ChildrenwithdisabilitiesEducationUnitedStates.2.DisabilityevaluationUnitedStates.
3.EducationaltestsandmeasurementsUnitedStates.4.SpecialeducationUnitedStates.
I.Giuliani,GeorgeA.II.Title.
LC4031.P4832013
371.90973dc23
2011033705
10987654321
ISBN13:978-1-323-45667-5
ISBN10:1-323-45667-8
Previous section
Next section
1.1OVERVIEWOFASSESSMENT
Judyisinseriousdangeroffailingfourthgradeagain.Sheappearstohavedifficultyfollowingdirections,completingassignmentsontime,progressinginreadingandspelling,andinteractingwithherpeers.HerteacherbelievesthatJudymayhavealearningdisabilityandhasmadeareferraltothedistrictsCommitteeonSpecialEducation.
Benjaminhascerebralpalsyandusesawheelchair.Hehasrecentlymovedintothecommunityandenrolledinthelocalhighschool.HisparentsareconcernedthatBenjaminisnotdevelopingthemobilityanddailylivingskillsthatheneedsnowandinthefuture.TheyrequestthatthenewschoolsystemevaluateBenjamintoidentifyhisspecialneeds.
Carloshasbecomeseverelywithdrawninthelastyear.Hisgradeshavebeendecliningsteadily,heisstartingtoskipschool,andwhentheteachercallsonhiminclass,herespondsrudelyornotatall.TheteacherisworriedthatCarlosmayhaveanemotionaldisorder.Shemakesareferraltothespecialeducationdepartment.
Althoughthesechildrenaredifferentfromeachotherinverymanyways,theymayalsosharesomethingincommon.Eachmaybeastudentwhohasadisabilitythatwillrequirespecialeducationservicesintheschoolsetting.Beforedecisionsmaybemadeaboutwhatthosespecialeducationserviceswillbe,eachchildrequiresanevaluationconductedbyspeciallytrainededucationalpersonnel,whichmayincludeaschoolpsychologist,aspeechlanguagepathologist,specialeducationandregulareducationteachers,socialworkers,and,whenappropriate,medicalpersonnel.Thisistrueforanychildsuspectedofhavingadisability.
Assessmentinspecialeducationisaprocessthatinvolvescollectinginformationaboutastudentforthepurposeofmakingdecisions(Salvia&Ysseldyke,2007).Itinvolvesgatheringinformationaboutastudentsstrengthsandneedsinallareasofconcern(Friend&Bursuck,2006).AccordingtoTaylor(2009),assessmentreferstothegatheringofrelevantinformationtohelpanindividualmakedecisions.Theeducationalandpsychologicalassessmentofexceptionalstudents,specifically,involvesthecollectionofinformationthatisrelevantinmakingdecisionsregardingappropriategoalsandobjectives,teachingstrategies,andprogramplacement(p.3).
Assessment
isamajorfocalpointineducationtoday.Theterm
assessmentapproach
describesthewayinformationiscollectedformakinganeducationaldecision(Cohen&Spenciner,2007).Assessmentincludesmanyformalandinformalmethodsofevaluatingstudentprogressandbehavior(Overton,2009).Clearly,gatheringinformationaboutastudentusingavarietyoftechniquesandinformationsourcesshouldshedconsiderablelightonstrengthsandneeds,thenatureofasuspecteddisabilityanditseffectoneducationalperformance,andrealisticandappropriateinstructionalgoalsandobjectives.
Theprofessionalinvolvedinspecialeducationintodaysschoolsplaysaverycriticalroleintheoveralleducationofstudentswithalltypesofdisabilities.Acomprehensiveassessmentcompletedbyschoolprofessionalsmayaddressanyaspectofastudentseducationalfunctioning(Pierangelo&Giuliani,2009).Thespecialeducatorspositionisunique,inthatheorshecanplaymanydifferentrolesintheeducationalenvironment.Whatevertheirrole,specialeducatorsencounteravarietyofsituationsthatrequirepracticaldecisionsandrelevantsuggestions.Nomatterwhichtypeofprofessionalyoubecomeinthefieldofspecialeducation,itisalwaysnecessarytofullyunderstandtheassessmentprocessandtobeabletoclearlycommunicatevitalinformationtoprofessionals,parents,andstudents.
Theimportanceofassessmentshouldneverbeunderestimated.Inspecialeducation,youwillworkwithmanyprofessionalsfromdifferentfields.Youarepartofateam,oftenreferredtoasamultidisciplinaryteam(seeChapter8),thattriestodeterminewhetheradisabilityispresentinastudent(Cohen&Spenciner,2011).Theteamsroleiscrucialbecauseithelpsdeterminetheextentanddirectionofachildspersonaljourneythroughthespecialeducationexperience(Pierangelo&Giuliani,2009).Consequently,theskillsneededtoofferachildthemostglobal,accurate,andpracticalevaluationshouldbefullyunderstood.Thedevelopmentoftheseskillsshouldincludeagoodworkingknowledgeofthefollowingcomponentsoftheassessmentprocessinordertodeterminethepresenceofasuspecteddisability(NationalInformationCenterforChildrenandYouthswithDisabilities,2000):
Collection
:
Theprocessoftracingandgatheringinformationfromthemanysourcesofbackgroundinformationonachildsuchasschoolrecords,observation,parentintakes,andteacherreports
Analysis
:
Theprocessingandunderstandingofpatternsinachildseducational,social,developmental,environmental,medical,andemotionalhistory
Evaluation
:
Theevaluationofachildsacademic,intellectual,psychological,emotional,perceptual,language,cognitive,andmedicaldevelopmentinordertodetermineareasofstrengthandweakness
Determination
:
Thedeterminationofthepresenceofasuspecteddisabilityusingknowledgeofthecriteriathatconstituteeachcategory
Recommendation
:
Therecommendationsconcerningeducationalplacementandprogramthatneedtobemadetotheschool,teachers,andparents
1.2PURPOSEOFASSESSMENT
Assessmenttakesplacewhenstudentsexperiencedifficultymeetingthedemandsofthegeneraleducationcurriculumandarereferredforconsiderationforspecialeducationservices(McLoughlin&Lewis,2008).Aswillbediscussedingreatdetailthroughoutthisbook,followingareferralforasuspecteddisabilityofachildandwithwrittenparentalorguardianpermission,anindividualmultidisciplinaryandcomprehensiveassessmentisconducted.Thismeansthatformaltests,observations,andnumerousassessmentswillbegiven.Theresultshelptodetermineifspecialeducationisneededandwhetherfactorsunrelatedtodisabilitiesareaffectingachildsschoolperformance.
Assessmentshouldbeanactive,ongoingprocessthathasaclearlyspecifiedpurpose(Taylor,2009).Assessmentresultsprovideinformationusefulfordeterminingormodifyingachildsprogram,ifnecessary.Thedecisionsthatuseassessmentinformationarevariedandcomplex,andtheyoccurinandoutofclassrooms(Salvia&Ysseldyke,2007).Assessmentplaysacriticalroleinthedeterminationofsiximportantdecisions(NationalInformationCenterforChildrenandYouthswithDisabilities,2000):
Evaluationdecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocesscanprovidedetailedinformationofastudentsstrengths,weaknesses,andoverallprogress.
Diagnosticdecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocesscanprovidedetailedinformationofthespecificnatureofthestudentsproblemsordisability.
Eligibilitydecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocesscanprovidedetailedinformationonwhetherachildiseligibleforspecialeducationservices.
IEPdevelopmentdecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocesscanprovidedetailedinformationsothatanindividualizededucationprogram(IEP)maybedeveloped.
Educationalplacementdecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocesscanprovidedetailedinformationsothatappropriatedecisionsmaybemadeaboutthechildseducationalplacement.
Instructionalplanningdecisions:Informationcollectedintheassessmentprocessiscriticalinplanninginstructionappropriatetothechildsspecialsocial,academic,physical,andmanagementneeds.
1.3LANDMARKCOURTCASESINSPECIALEDUCATION
Thefirstfederallawsdesignedtoassistindividualswithdisabilitiesdatebacktotheearlydaysofthenation.In1798,theFifthCongresspassedthefirstfederallawconcernedwiththecareofpersonswithdisabilities(NationalInformationCenterforChildrenandYouthwithDisabilities,1996).ThislawauthorizedtheMaineHospitalServicetoprovidemedicalservicestoseamenwithdisabilitiesorthosewhoweresick.By1912,thisentityhadbecomeknownasthePublicHealthService.However,priortoWorldWarII,therewererelativelyfewfederallawsauthorizingspecialbenefitsforpersonswithdisabilities.Thosethatexistedwereintendedtoaddresstheneedsofwarveteranswithservice-connecteddisabilities.Thismeantthat,formostofournationshistory,schoolswereallowedtoexcludeandoftendidexcludecertainchildren,especiallythosewithdisabilities.
In1948,only12percentofallchildrenwithdisabilitiesreceivedsomeformofspecialeducation.Bytheearly1950s,specialeducationservicesandprogramswereavailableinschooldistricts,butoftenundesirableresultsoccurred.Forexample,studentsinspecialclasseswereconsideredunabletoperformacademictasks.Consequently,theywenttospecialschoolsorclassesthatfocusedonlearningmanualskillssuchasweavingandbeadstringing.Althoughprogramsexisted,itwasclearthatdiscriminationwasstillasstrongaseverforthosewithdisabilitiesinschools.
Legislationandcourtcasestopreventdiscriminationineducationfirstcametonoticein1954withthefamouscaseBrownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,Kansas.InBrown,theU.S.SupremeCourtruledthatitwasillegalpracticeundertheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutiontoarbitrarilydiscriminateagainstanygroupofpeople.TheCourtthenappliedthisprincipletotheschoolingofchildren,holdingthataseparateeducationforAfricanAmericanstudentsisnotanequaleducation.Initsfamousruling,separatebutequalwouldnolongerbeaccepted(347U.S.483).
Brownsettheprecedentforfuturediscriminationcasesineducation.Peoplewithdisabilitieswererecognizedasanothergroupwhoserightshadbeenviolatedbecauseofarbitrarydiscrimination.Forchildren,thediscriminationoccurredbecausetheyweredeniedaccesstoschoolsduetotheirdisabilities.UsingBrownastheirlegalprecedent,studentswithdisabilitiesclaimedthattheirsegregationandexclusionfromschoolviolatedtheiropportunityforanequaleducationunderthe
FourteenthAmendment
oftheU.S.ConstitutiontheEqualProtectionClause.IfBrownprohibitedsegregationbyrace,thenschoolsshouldnotbeabletosegregateorotherwisediscriminatebyabilityanddisability.
Inthe1960s,parentsbegantoadvocateforbettereducationalopportunitiesfortheirchildren.Aroundthesametime,manyauthoritiesbegantoagreethatsegregatedspecialclasseswerenotthemostappropriateeducationalsettingformanystudentswithdisabilities.Bytheendofthe1960s,landmarkcourtcasessetthestageforenactmentoffederallawstoprotecttherightsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesandtheirparents.Someofthemostsignificantcourtcasesinspecialeducation,intheirorderofoccurrence,include:
HOBSONv.HANSEN(1967).
InHobsonv.Hansen,aU.S.districtcourtdeclaredthattheDistrictofColumbiaschoolsystemstrackingsystemwasinvalid.However,specialclasseswereallowed,providedthattestingprocedureswererigorousandthatretestingwasfrequent(Sattler,2008).
DIANAv.STATEBOARDOFEDUCATION(1970).
InDianav.StateBoardofEducation,CaliforniawasmandatedbythecourttocorrectbiasinassessmentproceduresusedwithChineseAmericanandMexicanAmericanstudents.Dianahadthreeveryimportantholdingsthatwouldlaterinfluencetheenactmentoffederalspecialeducationlaws:
1.IfastudentsprimarylanguagewasnotEnglish,thestudenthadtobetestedinbothEnglishandhisorherprimarylanguage.
2.Culturallyunfairitemshadtobeeliminatedfromalltestsusedintheassessmentprocess.
3.Ifintelligencetestsweretobeusedintheassessmentprocess,theyhadtobedevelopedtoreflectMexicanAmericanculture(Dianav.StateBoardofEducation,C-70:37RFT,N.D.Cal.,1970).
PARCv.COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA(1972).
AU.S.federalcourtinPennsylvaniaratifiedaconsentagreementensuringthatschoolsmaynotexcludestudentswhohavebeenclassifiedwithmentalretardation.Also,thecourtmandatedthatallstudentsmustbeprovidedwithafreepubliceducation.Bothoftheseholdingswouldplayafundamentalroleintheenactmentoffuturefederalspecialeducationlaws(PARCv.CommonwealthofPennsylvania,343F.Supp.279,E.D.PA1972).
WYATTv.STICKNEY(1972).
InAlabama,afederalcourtruledthatmentallyretardedchildreninstateinstitutionshadaconstitutionalrighttotreatment(Wyattv.Stickney,344F.Supp.387,M.D.Ala1972).
GUADALUPEv.TEMPEELEMENTARYSCHOOL(1972).
InArizona,aU.S.districtcourtagreedtoastipulatedagreementthatchildrencouldnotbeplacedineducablementallyretardedclassesunlesstheyscoredlowerthantwostandarddeviationsbelowthepopulationmeanonanapprovedIQtestadministeredinthechildsownlanguage.Guadalupev.TempeElementarySchoolalsostipulatedthatotherassessmentproceduresmustbeusedinadditiontointelligencetests,andthatparentalpermissionmustbeobtainedforsuchplacements(Sattler,2008).
MILLSv.BOARDOFEDUCATIONOFDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA(1972).
Thiscasesetforthfutureguidelinesforfederallegislation,includingtherightsofstudentswithdisabilitiestohaveaccesstoafreepubliceducation,dueprocessprotection,andamandatedrequirementtoprovidespecialeducationservicesregardlessoftheschooldistrictsfinancialcapability(Millsv.BoardofEducationofDistrictofColumbia,348Supp.866,CD.DC1972;contemptproceedings,EHLR551:643CD.DC1980).
PASE(PARENTSINACTIONONSPECIALEDUCATION)v.JOSEPHP.HANNON(1980).
InthiscaseregardingbiasinIQtesting,thejudge(JudgeGradyinIllinois)foundthatontheIQtestsheexamined,only9ofthe488testquestionswereraciallybiased.Consequently,IQtestswerefoundnottobediscriminatory.Furthermore,JudgeGradyindicatedthatclinicaljudgmentalsoplaysalargeroleininterpretingIQtestresults.Hestated:ThereisnoevidenceinthisrecordthatsuchmisassessmentsasdooccuraretheresultofracialbiasintestitemsorinanyaspectoftheassessmentprocesscurrentlyinuseintheChicagopublicschoolsystem.Therefore,thedecisioninPASEresolvedsomeofthecontroversyabouttheuseofIQtestsforspecialeducationclassification.Asaresult,theuseofintelligencetestswasacceptableinpsychoeducationalassessmentaslongastheyfollowedallotherproceduralsafeguardsunderfederallaw(PASEv.JosephP.Hannon,No.74C3586N.D.Ill.1980).
LUKES.ANDHANSS.v.NIXETAL.(1982).
InthestateofLouisiana,allevaluationshadtobecompletedwithina60-daytimeperiod.Theplaintiffsinthiscasearguedthatthousandsofstudentswerenotbeingappropriatelyevaluatedwithinthistimeperiod.ThecourtruledinfavoroftheplaintiffsandinformedthestateofLouisianathatgreaterprereferralassessmentshouldbedonebeforeareferralismade(LukeS.andHansS.v.Nixetal,citedinTaylor,2009,p.9).
BOARDOFEDUCATIONOFHENDRICKHUDSONSCHOOLDISTRICTv.ROWLEY(1982).
TheparentsofAmyRowley,adeafstudentwithminimalresidualhearingandexcellentlip-readingskills,soughttheservicesofafull-timeinterpreterinherregularclasses.AmyhadbeenprovidedwithanFMtrainer(ateacherofthedeaf)for1hourperdayandspeechtrainingfor3hoursperweek.EventhoughAmywasmissingabouthalfofwhatwasbeingdiscussedinclass,shewasverywelladjusted,wasperformingbetterthantheaveragechildintheclass,andwasadvancingeasilyfromgradetograde.
Basedonthesefacts,theU.S.SupremeCourtdeterminedinBoardofEducationofHendrickHudsonSchoolDistrictv.RowleythatAmywasreceivinganappropriateeducationwithoutthesigninterpreter.Inreachingthisopinion,theCourtconcludedthattheobligationtoprovideanappropriateeducationdoesnotmeanaschoolmustprovidethebesteducationoronedesignedtomaximizeastudentspotential.However,theprogrammustbebasedonthestudentsuniqueindividualneedsandbedesignedtoenablethestudenttobenefitfromaneducation.Inotherwords,thestudentmustbemakingprogress(Hager,1999,p.5).
JOSEP.v.AMBACH(1983).
PlaintiffsfiledsuitagainstNewYorkCity,complainingabouttheinappropriatedeliveryofservices.Theplaintiffsarguedthatmanystudentsinspecialeducationwerenotreceivingservicesinanappropriatetimeframe.Thecourtruledinfavoroftheplaintiffsandstatedthatfromthetimeofreferraltoevaluationamaximumof30dayscanelapse.Thecourtinformedthedefendantsthatallevaluationsmustbetimelyevaluations(Taylor,2009,p.10).
LARRYP.v.RILES(1984).
InthisCaliforniacase,usingIQtestsastheassessmentmeasureforplacingAfricanAmericanstudentsinspecialeducationasmentallyretardedwasfoundtobediscriminatory.SchoolsinCaliforniaweremandatedbythecourttoreducethedisproportionaterepresentationofAfricanAmericanstudentsinspecialeducation.InLarryP.v.Riles,thecourtdeterminedthatIQtestswerediscriminatoryagainstAfricanAmericansinthreeways:
1.IQtestsactuallymeasureachievementratherthanability.BecauseAfricanAmericansthroughouttheireducationalhistoryhavebeendeniedequaleducationalopportunitiesthroughschoolssegregatedbyrace,theywillinevitablyhaveachievementscoreslowerthanthenormsandthusbediscriminatedagainstintesting.
2.IQtestsrestontheplausiblebutunprovenassumptionthatintelligenceisdistributedinthepopulationinaccordancewithanormalstatisticalcurve(bell-shaped),andthusthetestsareartificialtoolstorankindividuals.
3.IQtestsleadtotheclassificationofmoreAfricanAmericanstudentsthanwhitestudentsindead-endclassesforstudentswithmildtomoderatedisabilities[(No.C-71-2270RFP(1979)andNo.80-4027DCNo.C-71-2270intheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit(1984)].
GEORGIASTATECONFERENCEOFBRANCHESOFNAACPv.STATEOFGEORGIA(1984).
InGeorgiaStateConferenceofBranchesofNAACPv.StateofGeorgia,aU.S.courtofappealsruledthatAfricanAmericanchildrenschooledinthestateofGeorgiawerenotbeingdiscriminatedagainstsolelybecausetherewasadisproportionatenumberoftheminclassesforlowachievers.ThecourtexplainedthattherewasnoevidenceofdifferentialtreatmentofAfricanAmericanandotherstudents.OverrepresentationofAfricanAmericanchildreninclassesforthementallyretardedbyitselfwasnotsufficienttoprovediscrimination(Sattler,2008).
DANIELR.R.v.STATEBOARDOFEDUCATION(1989).
DanielR.R.isoneofthecrucialcasesopeningthedoortoincreasedinclusionofchildrenwithdisabilitiesinregulareducationclasses.ThecourtnotedthatCongressshowedastrongpreferencefavoringmainstreamingthatis,educatingthestudentintheregulareducationclassroomwithsupports.Ironically,thecourtdeterminedthatitwasnotappropriatetoincludethechildinthiscaseinfull-timeregulareducation.However,thecourtsanalysisoftheleastrestrictiveenvironmentrequirement,especiallyitsinterpretationofwhatismeantbyprovidingsupplementaryaidsandservicesintheregularclassroom,hasbeenfollowedbyanumberofothercourts(Hager,1999,p.6).
Indeterminingwhetheritisappropriatetoplaceastudentwithdisabilitiesinregulareducation,thestudentneednotbeexpectedtolearnatthesamerateastheotherstudentsintheclass.Inotherwords,partoftherequiredsupplementaryaidsandservicesmustbethemodificationoftheregulareducationcurriculumforthestudent,whenneeded.ThecourtinDanielR.R.v.StateBoardofEducationnoted,however,thattheschoolneednotmodifytheprogrambeyondrecognition.Also,inlookingatwhetheritisappropriateforthechildtobeinregulareducationinotherwords,whetherthestudentcanbenefiteducationallyfromregularclassplacementtheschoolmustconsiderthebroadereducationalbenefitofcontactwithnondisabledstudents,suchasopportunitiesformodelingappropriatebehaviorandsocialization(Hager,1999,p.6).
GERSTMEYERv.HOWARDCOUNTYPUBLICSCHOOLS(1994).
AlthoughHowardSchoolDistricthadbeentoldthatachildneededanevaluationbeforeenteringthefirstgrade,theevaluationwasnotdonepriortothechildsenteringthefirstgrade.Theparentssenttheirchildtoprivateschoolandtheevaluationwasonlydone6monthsaftertheinitialreferral.Theparentssuedthedistrictforthecostsofprivateschoolingandtutoringcausedbythedelay.InGerstmeyerv.HowardCountyPublicSchools,thecourtruledinfavoroftheparentsandmadeHowardSchoolDistrictreimbursethemforallassociatedcosts(Taylor,2009,p.10).
1.4THEHISTORYOFFEDERALLEGISLATIONFORINDIVIDUALSWITHDISABILITIES
Asaresultofnumeroushistoricalcourtcases,federallegislationforindividualswithdisabilitiesbegantodevelopintheearly1970s.Thissectiondiscussesrelevantfederallegislationthathasmadeasignificantimpactonthehealth,welfare,safety,andeducationalrightsoftheseindividuals(intheorderinwhichthelegislationwasenacted).
Section504oftheVocationalRehabilitationAct
Section504oftheVocationalRehabilitationAct
isacivilrightslawenactedin1973.Itwascreatedtopreventdiscriminationagainstallindividualswithdisabilitiesinprogramsthatreceivefederalfunds.Forchildrenofschoolage,Section504ensuresstudentsofequalopportunitytoparticipateinallschoolactivities(CouncilofEducatorsforStudentswithDisabilities,2007).Section504playsaveryimportantroleinassessment,especiallyforstudentswhodonotmeetthecriteriatobeclassifiedforspecialeducation.SomestudentsnoteligibleforservicesinspecialeducationmaybeentitledtoreceiveaccommodationsunderSection504tohelptheminschool.Forexample,achildwithattentiondeficitdisorder(ADD)maymeetthecriteriaforspecialaccommodationsunder504,becauseeventhoughattentiondeficitdisorderisnotaclassificationcoveredunderfederallaw,underSection504,studentswithADDcanreceivespecialassistance.OtherstudentswhomaybehelpedunderSection504wouldbethosewithasthma,allergies,arthritis,ordiabetes,tonamejustafew(U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,2006).
TheFamilyEducationRightsandPrivacyActP.L.93-380
The
FamilyEducationRightsandPrivacyAct(FERPA)
,oftenreferredtoastheBuckleyAmendment,givesparentsofstudentsundertheageof18,andstudentsage18andover,therighttoexaminerecordskeptinthestudentspersonalfile(Cohen&Spenciner,2011).FERPAwaspassedin1974tocoverallstudents,eventhoseinpostsecondaryeducation,andincludesthefollowingmajorprovisions:
Parentsandeligiblestudentshavetherighttoinspectandreviewthestudentseducationrecords.
Schoolsmusthavewrittenpermissionfromtheparentoreligiblestudentbeforereleasinganyinformationfromastudentsrecords.
Parentsandeligiblestudentshavetherighttohavetherecordsexplainedandinterpretedbyschoolofficials.
Schoolofficialsmaynotdestroyanyeducationrecordsifthereisanoutstandingrequesttoinspectandreviewthem.
Parentsandeligiblestudentswhobelievethatinformationintheeducationrecordsisinaccurateormisleadingmayrequestthattherecordsbeamended.Theparentsoreligiblestudentsmustbeadvisediftheschooldecidesthattherecordsshouldnotbeamended,andtheyhavetherighttoahearing.
Finally,FERPAmandatesthateachschooldistrictmustgiveparentsofstudentsinattendance,orstudentsage18orover,anannualnoticetoinformthemoftheirrightsunderthislaw,includingtherightofparentsoreligiblestudentstofileacomplaintwiththeU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
TheEducationofAllHandicappedChildrenAct(EHA)P.L.94-142
Becauseofthevictoriesthatwerebeingwonforstudentswithdisabilitiesintheearly1970s,parentsandstudentadvocatesbegantolobbyCongressforfederallawsandmoneythatwouldensurethatstudentswithdisabilitiesreceivedaneducationthatwouldmeettheirneeds.In1975,thestagewasclearlysetforanationalspecialeducationlaw.Yearsofexclusion,segregation,anddenialofbasiceducationalopportunitiestostudentswithdisabilitiesandtheirfamiliessetanimperativeforacivilrightslawguaranteeingthesestudentsaccesstotheeducationsystem(Heward,2009).
Despitetheadvancesbeingmadeinprovidingservicestostudentswithdisabilities,in1975Congressfoundthat
Over1.75millionchildrenwithdisabilitieswerebeingexcludedentirelyfromreceivingapubliceducationsolelyonthebasisoftheircondition.
Over4millionoftheestimated8millionchildrenwithdisabilitiesinthiscountrywerenotreceivingtheappropriateeducationalservicestheyneededandwereentitledtoreceive.
Manyotherchildrenwithdisabilitieswerestillbeingplacedininappropriateeducationalsettingsbecausetheirdisabilitieswereundetectedorbecauseofaviolationoftheirindividualrights.
Becauseofthelackofadequateserviceswithinthepublicschoolsystem,familieswereoftenforcedtofindservicesoutsidethepublicschoolsystem,oftenatgreatdistancefromtheirresidencesandattheirownexpense.
Stateandlocaleducationalagencieshavearesponsibilitytoprovideeducationforallchildrenwithdisabilities.
Itisinthenationalinterestthatthefederalgovernmentassiststateandlocaleffortstoprovideprogramstomeettheeducationalneedsofchildrenwithdisabilitiesinordertoensureequalprotectionofthelaw.
Congress,recognizingthenecessityofspecialeducationforchildrenwithdisabilitiesandconcernedaboutthewidespreaddiscrimination,enactedintofederallawthe
EducationofAllHandicappedChildrenAct(EHA)
,P.L.94-142.PublicLaw94-142setforthfederalproceduralsafeguardsforchildrenwithdisabilitiesandtheirparents(Gargiulo,2008).Thislawoutlinedtheentirefoundationonwhichcurrentspecialeducationpracticesrestandthebasisforourcurrentfederallawinspecialeducation,theIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct(IDEA2004).
TheCarlD.PerkinsVocationalandTechnicalEducationAct(ThePerkinsAct)P.L.105-332
The
VocationalEducationActof1984
,oftenreferredtoastheCarlD.PerkinsActorthePerkinsAct,authorizesfederalfundstosupportvocationaleducationprograms.OnegoalofthePerkinsActistoimprovetheaccessofeitherthosewhohavebeenunderservedinthepastorthosewhohavegreater-than-averageeducationalneeds.Undertheact,specialpopulationsincludethosewhohaveadisability,aredisadvantaged,orhavelimitedEnglishproficiency.Thislawisparticularlyimportantbecauseitrequiresthatvocationaleducationbeprovidedforstudentswithdisabilities(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2011).
Thelawstatesthatindividualswhoaremembersofspecialpopulations(includingindividualswithdisabilities)mustbeprovidedwithequalaccesstorecruitment,enrollment,andplacementactivitiesinvocationaleducation.Inaddition,theseindividualsmustbeprovidedwithequalaccesstothefullrangeofvocationaleducationprogramsavailabletoothers,includingoccupationallyspecificcoursesofstudy,cooperativeeducation,apprenticeshipprograms,and,totheextentpractical,comprehensiveguidanceandcounselingservices.Underthelaw,vocationaleducationalplanningshouldbecoordinatedamongpublicagencies,includingvocationaleducation,specialeducation,andthestatevocationalrehabilitationagencies.TheprovisionofvocationaleducationtoyouthwithdisabilitiesshouldbemonitoredtoensurethatsucheducationisconsistentwithobjectivesstatedinthestudentsIEP.
EducationoftheHandicappedActAmendmentsof1986P.L.99-457
In1983,CongressamendedtheEducationofAllHandicappedChildrenActtoexpandincentivesforpreschoolspecialeducationprograms,earlyintervention,andtransitionprograms.AllprogramsunderEHAbecametheresponsibilityoftheOfficeofSpecialEducationPrograms(OSEP).
In1986,PublicLaw99-457,
EducationoftheHandicappedActAmendmentsof1986
,waspassed,amendingP.L.94-142andrequiringthestatestoprovideafreeandappropriatepubliceducationtochildrenwithdisabilitiesages3through5.Theregulationsthatgovernedschool-agechildrenwerethenmadeapplicabletotheassessmentofpreschoolchildren.Inaddition,anewpart(PartH)wasaddedtothelaw,establishingincentivesforservinginfantsandtoddlerswithspecialneeds.
TheAmericanswithDisabilitiesActP.L.101-336
InJuly1990,PresidentGeorgeH.W.BushsignedintolawPublicLaw101-336the
AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA)
.Hesaid,Lettheshamefulwallsofexclusionfinallycometumblingdown.SenatorTomHarkin,thechiefsponsoroftheact,spokeofthislawastheemancipationproclamationforpeoplewithdisabilities.ThiscivilrightslawisbasedonSection504oftheVocationalRehabilitationActof1973,butitfurtherextendstherightsofindividualswithdisabilities.Itprotectsallindividualswithdisabilitiesfromdiscriminationandrequiresmostemployerstomakereasonableaccommodationsforthem(OfficeforCivilRights,2006).
TheADAplaysaveryimportantroleintransitionalservicesforstudentswithdisabilities.Italsofiguressignificantlyinmakingsurethatallschoolbuildingsareaccessibletopeoplewithdisabilities.Forexample,ifyourschoolisnotaccessibleforwheelchairs,doesnothaveemergencyexitsforall,ordoesnothaveramps,thiswouldbeaviolationoftheADA.
TheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationImprovementAct(IDEA2004;discussedlaterinthischapter)andADAdifferincertainimportantareas,includingthefollowing:
IDEA2004benefitsonlythosewhoarebetweencertainages(birthto21years).Bycontrast,ADAbenefitsallpeoplewithdisabilities,withoutregardtotheirage.
IDEA2004benefitsonlythosepeopleinschool.Bycontrast,ADAbenefitspeoplewhoareemployedorwhouseawiderangeofpublicandprivateservices.
IDEA2004providesmoneytostateandlocalagenciestohelpeducatestudentswithdisabilities,definingtherightsandservicesaffordedbylaw.Bycontrast,ADAprohibitsdiscrimination,butdoesnotprovidemoneytohelpanyonecomplywithit.
Regardlessoftheirdifferences,IDEA2004andADAworktogether.IDEA2004helpsstateandlocaleducationagenciescreateservicestoeducatestudentswithdisabilities,andADAprotectsstudentsagainstdiscriminationwhentheyarenotinschool.
TheIndividualswithDisabilitiesEducationActP.L.101-476
In1990,thereauthorizationofP.L.94-142wasenactedandbecamePublicLaw101-476.
Reauthorization
issimplytheactofamendingandrenewingalaw.PublicLaw101-476iswidelyknownas
IDEA(In
