History of Special EducationMADIHA RAHMAN

SPE 514

DR. IMANI AKIN

FEBRUARY 23, 2105

Introduction

Children and youth with disabilities have historically received unequal treatment in the public education system.

In the early 20th century, the enactment of compulsory attendance laws in the U.S. began to change the educational opportunities for these students.

Opportunities for admittance to public schools were greater, but many students still did not receive an effective or appropriate education.

Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, parents and advocates for students with disabilities began to use the courts in an attempt to force states to provide an equal educational opportunity for these students.

These efforts were very successful and eventually led to the passage of federal legislation to ensure these rights (Yell, Rogers, Rogers, 1998). 

Early Special Education Programs In America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, many

individuals began to realize the importance of public education for the disabled individual.

Special schools and special classes for children with disabilities, especially deafness, blindness, and mental retardation did exist in 19th century America but gradually increased during the 20th century.

During the 1800s in America, deviant children were considered handicapped, retarded, incorrigible, truant, socially maladjusted, and their basic actions were in conflict with the law, whether considered either dangerous, violent, or harmless and/or mild in nature.

It is reported that there were more than two million defective individuals in the United States during the 1800s, and as a result of their “diseased or weak minds they (were) in society making criminals.”

Today, the deviant learning handicapped student is educated within public community schools and specially placed in special need classrooms (McQuin, 2006).

Beattie v. Board of Education (1919)

Merritt Beattie was a student who had difficulty with speech, drooling problems, and some paralysis.

The school didn’t like having him there and tries to get him re-allocated to a unit for the deaf, even though his academic progress was normal.

He was expelled from school because “this condition nauseated the teachers and other students” 

Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that school officials could exclude students with disabilities.

There existed a widely accepted belief at this time that students with disabilities were best kept at the margins of society (Yell, Rogers, Rogers, 1998).

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

In Topeka, Kansas, an African American third grader named Linda Brown had to walk several miles to get to her elementary school even though an elementary school for white children was only blocks away.

Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused.

In Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decided that schools should not segregate students by race, but it was more than 10 years later until that decision was enforced in schools across the United States.

Brown v. the Board of Education is historically important to later disability entitlement and discrimination laws because early advocates reasoned that if schools should not segregate students by race, they should also not segregate them by their abilities and disabilities.

These advocates for students with disabilities were successful in presenting their case. As a result of their efforts, lawsuits were filed and legislation was passed on behalf of students with disabilities (Darrow, 2007).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)

Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 to address the inequality of educational opportunity for underprivileged children.

It was enacted to provide federal general aid to education.

This decision provided resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students had access to quality education.

In 1966, Congress amended the ESEA to establish a grant program to help states in the “initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects . . . for the education of handicapped children.”

In 1970, Congress enacted the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230) in an effort to encourage states to develop educational programs for individuals with disabilities (Joslow, 1971, p. 6).

 PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972)

In 1971, the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs argued that students with mental retardation were not receiving publicly supported education.

There was a consent agreement that all children with mental retardation between the ages of 6 and 21 years must be provided a free public education and that it was most desirable to educate children with mental retardation in a program most like the programs provided for their nondisabled peers.

Before this case, many states had similar forms of legislation in place to prevent children with mental disabilities from receiving a free public education.

Due to the rulings, the Commonwealth could no longer deny any child with disabilities access to any free public program of education and training (Yell, Rogers, Rogers, 1998).

Mills v. Board of Education, DC (1972)

Peter Mills was a 12-year old student with behavioral issues. His school district excluded him from school asserting that his behavioral issues would be too expensive to address.

The district claimed that providing education for children like Peter would cost millions of dollars, and educating Peter would be an undue burden.

In the decision, the District Court Judge stated that no child eligible for a publicly supported education could be denied such education without an equal alternative tailored to the child’s needs.

This case extended the PARC right-to-an-education consent agreement to include all exceptional children, not just those labeled as mentally retarded (Brown, 1976, p. 3).

Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of (1975) 

On November 19, 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 94-142, also known as The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975.

The purpose of this law is “to assure that all handicapped children have available to them . . . a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all handicapped children, and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate handicapped children.” [Section 601(c)].

Legislation incorporated six major components and guarantees that endured to the present day: A free and appropriate education (FAPE)

The least restrictive environment (LRE)

An individualized education program (IEP)

Procedural due process

Nondiscriminatory assessment

Parental participation (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 49).

It is later amended and renamed as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 (Taylor, 2005).

No Child Left Behind Act (2001) In 2001, Congress was faced with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965.

The reauthorization of this act, PL 107-110, became known as "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB).

At first, the education community was not fully aware of the extent of the law and the implications various aspects of the law would have in the Pre-K-university settings.

The purpose of the NCLB Act 2001 is "to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education" (Kysilka, 2003).

All pupils, including those in special education, are expected to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, reading, and science.

Schools are expected to show adequate yearly progress toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014.

The law also calls for highly qualified teachers, including those who teach special education.

The enactment of this law has ushered in an era of what is now commonly referred to as “high-stakes testing” (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 54)

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004

In 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was amended again, and signed into law on December 3rd and is now known as IDEA 2004.

Issues that the law addressed: IEP Process

Identifying students with specific learning disabilities

Highly qualified special education teachers

Discipline

Due Process

Evaluation of students

Assessment participation (Gargiulo, 2012, p. 55-59)

IDEA 2004 has two primary purposes: "coordinating this title [IDEA 04] with other local, educational service agency, State, and Federal school

improvement efforts, including improvement efforts under the Elementary and secondary Education Act of 1965, in order to ensure that such children benefit from such efforts and that special education can become a service for such children rather than a place where such children are sent“

“providing appropriate special education and related services, and aids and supports in the regular classroom, to such children, whenever appropriate" (Handler, 2006).

Conclusion

Every student is different; with different abilities and needs.

Special education has come a long way in the US over the past decades.

We continue to see special education growing and evolving.

Students are now provided services that help them learn more effectively.

References Brown, G. R. (1976). A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF A SELECTED GROUP OF SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY LEADERS OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TOWARD THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WADDY DECREE (MILLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1972)(Order No. 7613503). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (302745889). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/302745889?accountid=35812

Darrow, A. (2007). Looking to the past: Thirty years of history worth remembering. Music Therapy Perspectives, 25(2), 94-99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199508574?accountid=35812

Gargiulo, R. M. (2012). Special education in contemporary society: An introduction to exceptionality (4th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database

Handler, B. R. (2006). Two acts, one goal: Meeting the shared vision of no child left behind and individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. The Clearing House, 80(1), 5-8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196878778?accountid=35812

Joslow, J. H. (1971). A study of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965, title II in selected school districts in connecticut (Order No. EP28533). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (302647260). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/302647260?accountid=35812

Kysilka, M. L. (2003). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: What does it really mean? Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 5(2), 99-104. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230424059?accountid=35812

McQuin, R. U. (2006). Understanding special education in america: Perspectives concerning our past, present, and future (Order No. 3196729). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (304910095). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304910095?accountid=35812

Taylor, S. S. (2005). Special education, private schools, and vouchers: Do all students get a choice? Journal of Law and Education,34(1), 1-24. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200958953?accountid=35812

Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Elisabeth, L. R. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long, strange trip it's been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/236312259?accountid=35812