History of Special Education - Article Example

History of Special Education Special education is one more productof the Modern Age. The evolution of societies and their social role have developed over the past one hundred years. The development of social education cannot be separated from the historical changes that occurred during that period. Children’s needs have become a modern problem which needs to be handled cautiously but positively. Understanding each disabled child individually and responding with the right kind of special education happens to be the norm adopted in the US through a program IDEA. The picture is similar in all other developed nations. Special schools grew during the 20th century. At the end of that century they were attending to 2% of the school population. Theorizing has not helped much according to Dewey (1920, 189-199). John Dewey was an educational philosopher who spoke of “progressive education” and was against the teaching of objective knowledge (Stolyarov II, 2008). His ideas have greatly influenced the teaching system in American schools. He believed that children should not be abruptly introduced to subjects like reading and writing before exploiting their social nature. Mere learning of true facts will be violating the natural ability of the children (Stolyarov II, 2008). The general changes in school education and social sciences have been instrumental in the development of special education (Thomas et al, 2007, p. 22). Progress of special education has been assisted by the academic and intellectual structures. Commercial and business enterprises have further surrounded the expansion. Special education has grown around the theoretical, empirical and scientific knowledge that has provided a basis for the stable and reliable knowledge (Thomas et al, 2007, p. 22) Education is not mentioned in the Constitution in the US but states have to offer equitable education to all children (Daugherty, 2001, p.1). Protections are available through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Daugherty, 2001, p.1). The history has been traced back to the Second World War. Soldiers who had congenital defects and childhood illnesses were discovered. These war veterans returned with larger extent of disabilities. Magnificent breakthroughs resulted in the medical community in America (Daughterty, 2001, p. 1). Technological Education was speedy to meet the challenge. Rapid change In 1955, following the sensational Brown vs. Board of Education, the segregation of the disabled was terminated. The increasing power of the National Advocacy Organizations and widespread lobbying influenced the policymakers. The thinking pattern and the political behavior changed in Washington, D.C. With all the noise made, the number of children who benefited came to just 20% in 1963. Intelligent quotients of less than 50 were considered trainable rather than educable; they could be taught to perform essential life functions like feeding themselves and toiletry needs. However they would be separated from the educable children who would have the traditional classroom teaching. The two landmark cases which triggered rapid change were the Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia and PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the beginning of the 1970s (Daugherty, 2001, p.2). The education of the disabled children at that time was believed to consist of inconsistent or nonexistent programs. These aspects and the concept of segregation were challenged in the Court through these cases. The interpretations of the issues represented all the children in Columbia who were eligible for such education. The demands were for an “appropriate free education program, an Individualized Education Program and associated procedures” (Daugherty, 2001). The Mills’ case had 7 African American children as plaintiffs who were denied the special education programs available then. The children exhibited some behavioral problems and were not allowed to continue in school. Not being given a hearing for their issues was a relevant complaint in most of their cases. In the course of the court proceedings, the issues became generalized to include similarly disabled children who were being discriminated against for want of the proper legislation in their favor. The sensational cases came out with the judgment chiding the authorities for disallowing the disabled children from attending the usual schools but at the same time not having made necessary arrangements for a different type of special schooling for their purposes. Alternate schooling or reviews at intervals were not being considered for the unfortunate children (Daugherty, 2001, p. 4). The District of Columbia could not provide the estimates of the ‘excluded’ children. According to the plaintiffs, only about 4000 of the 22000 possible children affected by the exclusion policies of the District were getting any kind of services; 18000 were not. However the District claimed that there were only 12340 who were ‘excluded’. Sufficient funds were needed for the special services that were essential for the educational opportunities of the disabled children. The court suggested that if special education was not possible with the funds available, arrangements may be made in the schools which the normal children attend. An order and a decree were passed by the court whereby exceptional children were to be identified and brought under the special education law. A definite time limit was permitted for compliance (Daugherty, 2001, p. 4). No exclusion or denial of education The new order insisted on no child being excluded for a disability or defect (Daugherty, 2001, p. 5). A hearing was to be allowed within 2 days of a disciplinary suspension. The period of the suspension was to allow education. The district authorities would determine within 20 days a plan for the child where his placement and education would be so conducted as to overcome the earlier deficits caused by denial of education. A series of programs would be examined before coming to a conclusion as to the most appropriate method for that child. Medical evaluations would continue as before. They would be supplemented by educational and psychological evaluations. A hearing for the parents was an essential component (Daugherty, 2001, p.5). They would also be informed early about the decision taken for the child and where he would have his education. Legal counsel at government expenditure would represent the child if the need arises. The defendant school would have to prove that the proposed school has all the requirements for that particular child. The parents were allowed to scrutinize the records leading to the placement. The decision on the placement was to be taken within 30 days of the hearing: undue delay was not welcomed (p. 5). These were the standards recommended for the Congress 1975 Special education Law which is now known as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). The PARC and Mills court decisions had no value outside Pennsylvania or Columbia respectively. However other states were triggered to pass rulings in the favor of exceptional children. Soon Congress passed legislation, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in which Section 504 ensured that a handicapped child was not to be denied or discriminated against for obtaining education by virtue of his deficit (Daugherty, 2001, p. 6). Programs were to be given Federal funds. The EAHCA (Education for all handicapped children) Law was passed in 1975. In 1990, it was renamed IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). Children with mental retardation or hearing impairment (speech or language impairment), visual impairment including blindness, autism, traumatic injury or orthopedic impairment, any other health impairment, a learning disability, deaf-blindness and multiple disabilities were the ones who were the beneficiaries of this new law (Subpart A, § 300.7). The Federal Government gave financial assistance based on the estimated number of children each state had. Six principles were incorporated in IDEA. The principles of IDEA. 1.FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education). The beneficiaries of IDEA were entitled to the FAPE: special education and other associated services were the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and costing nothing to the parents (Daugherty, 2001, p. 10). Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also prevented any discrimination based on disability but there was no Federal assistance. The definition for disability also included the provisions that the potential beneficiary was a person who had limitations in caring for himself or performing manual tasks or “walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working” (34 CFR §104.3(j) (2)(ii)). These laws were also to be adhered to before assistance was given based on IDEA’s provisions. A disparity occurred when some children were considered: drug addicts or alcoholics and those with Attention Deficit Disorder may not be covered by IDEA but may qualify by the provisions in Section 504 and ADA. FAPE provided education to the disabled children at public expense under the public supervision and without charge (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). The parents had no expenditure. The standards of the department of education in the state were upheld. Each eligible student was to be provided his unique needs. He would have an appropriate pre-school, elementary school and secondary education. The provisions of the Individualized Education Program would be followed in the imparting of the individualized attention. Children from the age of 3 to 21 years were covered under the program. Students who were expelled or suspended were not denied their rights for the FAPE if they are qualified (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). 2.Appropriate Evaluation This is done to evaluate whether a child is eligible for the IDEA program. Parents provide informed consent. All areas of suspected disability are evaluated using a variety of diagnostic tools (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). Functional, developmental and academic information is gathered. Evaluation methods are technically sound and not culturally discriminatory. They must be applied in the language the child is familiar with and administered by trained personnel. Reevaluation is conducted frequently, once in 3 years at least or more frequently as the occasion demands. Children between the ages of 3-5 who have developmental delays are included for assistance under IDEA by using the different diagnostic tools (Daugherty, 2001, p. 10). If the physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional development or adaptive development is affected, the child maybe a beneficiary of IDEA. Autistic children had repetitive activities and stereotyped movements and their educational performance were affected by emotional disturbances. Severe communication problems were evident in children with combined blindness and deafness. Occasionally multiple disabilities existed together. 3. Individualized Education program (IEP). The instructional program is designed for each child with the involvement of the educators, parents, student and experts (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). The program which has measurable goals is designed to produce meaningful progress in education and functional performance. The special education programs would be so designed to for each student so that he acquires the ability to advance in the single general education curriculum. The child must have more than the minimal benefit but need not acquire the maximum potential. Services, supports and extracurricular activities associated with the curriculum are included to boost the capacity of the child (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). 4.Least restrictive environment (LRE). The children who are disabled have their special education along with the normal children and at the same building (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). If necessitated by the child’s condition, he may be put elsewhere. The same peers must be available to all the children. Aids and services would be available in the same classroom. Music, art, physical education, trips, and other activities are commonly held. Funds are easily available and so no restriction would be necessary. The children who need special treatment would have a continuum of opportunities to see them through part of their lives. 5. Parent and student participation in decision making Parents and if possible the students too are involved deeply in the programs implemented (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). The institution of the IEP, education placement decisions, review of data, type of data to be collected and plans for the transition are the issues handled. 6.Procedural safeguards The parents’ rights have to be informed them. Notices of meetings have to be in a written format. If the school refuses to include a child in a program, the refusal must be officially informed to the parents. Student records must be available to the parents. Any corrections if necessary are made. If parents and educators differ in opinion, a resolution facilitator who is an impartial person and trained to be a mediator is used to ease out the issue (Six principles of IDEA, Ask Resource Center). The significance of court cases in the evolution of IDEA The Rowley case was the first major Supreme Court decision in a special education case. The special education accorded to a child confers some services but does not guarantee a particular level of achievement (Daugherty, 2001, p. 32). The case of the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 1982 provided a lot of insights into the provisions of IDEA. Amy Rowley was a hearing-impaired child with minimal residual hearing but she excelled in lip reading. The school authorities decided that she could join the regular education kindergarten class where they would decide during a trial period how she could be trained with supplementary aids (Daugherty, 2001, p. 32). The school administration and teachers underwent a sign language interpretation training to prepare for her arrival. A teletype machine was newly installed in order to communicate with her parents who were also deaf. During the trial period, it was decided that Amy could continue in the regular class but needed to be provided a hearing aid. In the first grade, IEP was chalked out according to IDEA. She also had the services of a tutor for the deaf and a speech therapist. The qualified sign language interpreter who also started working on Amy decided after a few weeks that she did not need his services. The parents brought the case saying that a sign language interpreter would have been good for the child even though the initial plan did not see the requirement for such services; she was being denied the FAPE. The court ruled that the school had in all good faith put in an effort to provide appropriate schooling by providing full time placement in the regular classroom. Aids and services were provided to boost the capacity of the child to reach social, academic and educational prowess; Amy was a smart and happy child who communicated well with her friends and teachers. The school authorities won the case (Daugherty, 2001, p. 32). In the case, there was an argument as to whether the child needed to have her potential maximized. The district court decided that Amy’s potential must be maximized through FAPE while the Supreme Court disagreed. The latter was of the opinion that the FAPE enabled a disabled child to fend for herself in society but that did not mean that the full potential needed to be tapped. Later there was an argument as to whether the child needed year-round services in the form of a summer camp (Alamo Heights ISD v. State Board of Education , 5th Cir. 1986). The opinion was divided. The district authorities claimed that “no significant regression” would occur even without the camp. However doctors and other professionals contradicted this opinion. In the Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education 5th Cir. 1989 a different situation prevailed. Here a mentally retarded and speech-impaired child, six year old Daniel, was put into a regular half-day prekindergarten regular education class at the behest of the parents along with the half-day early-childhood class. He was provided aids and special services. In spite of this effort, Daniel made no progress and mastered no skills. The school decided that the regular class was not doing any good so they stopped it. The lower court insisted that the regular class be continued as the parents wished, hoping that he gets some academic benefit. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the schools’ decision was right and the child need not have the regular class as he showed no improvement. The Court believed that The Act helped open up public education to the disabled children but the special educational outcome was not to be guaranteed. The child’s progress would be monitored through regular tests, grades and yearly progress. The Court also wanted to know the effort of the state in following the Act and whether the IEP for the child allowed some educational benefit (Daugherty, 2001, p. 36). If these two conditions were satisfied, it would be considered that the Act’s requirements were achieved. The Zero reject case: Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District, 875 F.2d. 954 (1st Cir. 1989) Timothy was born a premature baby with several developmental anomalies. He had severe respiratory problems, had a cranial hemorrhage, seizures, hydrocephalus, and meningitis and several disabilities apart from being mentally retarded. He also had spastic quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and cortical blindness. Having received special education services at a child development center, he was taken for admission to the district’s special education school. He was refused admission for the special education programs as he was too incapacitated to benefit from the program. Timothy did not receive a plan for his education. The New Hampshire Department of Education made a finding of non compliance (Daugherty, 2001, p. 37). Then the school decided at a meeting to have him educated at the child development center but they refused to go about it officially. Counsel filed a complaint and an order was issued to provide him with an educational program within five days. The school filed an appeal. The State Commissioner of Education ordered that he be given a diagnostic and preventive program. Timothy meanwhile received services under the ABLE program. At the same time he requested again for special education. A damage claim was rejected on the grounds that it would be allowed if the state administrative powers are exhausted. Finally the district was asked to provide him a program. Rochester School District had to provide an education. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and asked them to provide a program. FAPE was to be used for the child as it was mandatory for all children. “The term "related services" is defined as "transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education and includes speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, and medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes” (Daugherty, 2001, p. 39). The term also includes school health services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training." Other "services" include help in selecting, acquiring, and using assistive technology devices (e.g., computers, switches, communication devices) as well as occupational transition planning beginning at age 14 (34 CFR § 300.16(a)).” (Daugherty, 2001, p. 39). Cases have been recorded where related services have caused issues. Door-to-Door Transportation: Hurry v. Jones, 734 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1984) This is a case where the issue was one of related services. A handicapped person on a wheelchair received door-to-door transportation from the district authorities. When he became heavy at 160 pounds, only street service was provided. The parents then took over the transportation of George Hurry up the damaged staircase. Due to their difficulty they stooped his schooling. The First Circuit court ordered the reimbursement of the transportation and money to compensate when he did not attend school. The court resorted to the 20 USC §§ 1413(a) (4)(B) and 1401(17) and the State Laws for making the free transportation mandatory. Psychological Services and Counseling: Max M. v. Illinois State Bd.of Ed., 629 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ill. 1986) In another case of related services, Max, a high school student, could not keep up with classes as he had disorganization, anxiety and nursed a difficulty in writing. The evaluator recommended intense psychotherapy. The district refrained from paying for it. The parents had to spend for seeing the psychiatrist and having the psychotherapy sessions. The flaw in the Act which required the school authorities to provide just evaluation and diagnostic services without an arrangement for the psychotherapy sessions was highlighted by the Court. The Court ruled that the district was to be blamed for not providing a lower level of service and failing to inform the parents about their right to review the school decision and ordered that the psychiatrist services be paid by it. Related Services Case: Irving ISD v. Tatro, 468 US 883 ( 1984) Amber Tatro was born with a congenital defect: spina bifida. This required her to have clean intermittent catheterization to enable her to have some benefit out of the special education program. Though the child had IEP services, catheterization was not arranged for her. The Fifth Court of Appeals reversed the district order and sanctioned the catheterization as a related service. When the school appealed to the Supreme Court, it took the Fifth Court’s stand. When the school authorities complained that admission of disabled children with plenty of services would lead to several injuries, the Supreme Court pointed out that funds were easily available. Even the fees to the attorney could be obtained only under either the Special Education Law or the Rehabilitation Act and not both as assumed in some quarters. Attorney fees were denied. They were not eligible under the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794a). Later Justice Brennan said the Tatros were not entitled to attorney fees under the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794a) in the Smithy vs Robinson case. Conclusion : Special education has evolved over the past century and history tells us the changes and issues which cropped up gradually in the form of cases. Newer principles and laws were derived from the court cases that had landmark decisions on special education. The two landmark cases which triggered rapid change were the Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia and PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the beginning of the 1970s (Daugherty, 2001, p.2). The sensational cases came out with the judgment chiding the authorities for disallowing the disabled children from attending the usual schools but at the same time not having made necessary arrangements for a different type of special schooling for their purposes. No child could be excluded or denied education. IDEA, the law passed in 1990, included a large number of childrens’ disabilities which needed to be addressed when designing a program for a disabled child. The Federal Government provided the finances for the states based on the number of disabled children they had. The six principles of IDEA are the FAPE, evaluations, IEP, LER, parents in decision making and the procedural safeguards. As more problems arise in the implementation of the program, more adjustments would be made to the law. References: Daugherty, R.F., (2001), Special Education: A Summary of Legal Requirements, Terms, and Trends, Published by Bergin & Garvey: Westcourt C.T. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in Philosophy, Cornell University Library, Paperback Edition, 2009 Six Principles of IDEA, 2007-2008, Retrieved on 28/9/09. http://www.askresource.org Ask Family Resource Center Stolyarov II, G. Dated 15/9/2008. Retrieved on 28/9/09. “John Dewey and the chaos of contemporary public education”. http://www.quebeccoislibre.org/08/080915-2htm Le Quebecois Libre Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion, Open University Press: New York, McGraw-Hill Read More