PDED 505 Special Education Legislation & Litigation

1. PDED 505Special Education Legislation & Litigation HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

2. The “Early Days” • The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of education; in fact, it is not considered part of our "constitutional rights" to get an education • State Constitutions mention education, but typically not for students with disabilities (only a few states address this)

3. The “Early Days” • All states required a "common school" education, which basically refers to students receiving the "3Rs" • Students with physical/mental disabilities were excluded by state law, though many did receive an education through devoted parents and teachers

4. The “Early Days” • Some examples of court rulings pertaining to the education of children with disabilities: • refuse to serve "children physically or mentally incapacitated for schoolwork" • children with bodily or mental conditions rendering attendance inadvisable • if a child’s presence was not in the best interest of the school, the school board had an "obligation" to exclude students

5. The “Early Days” • The judicial system upheld these exclusionary practices and rulings when contested… • Examples: • "teaching a child of school age with diminished mental capacity to eat, use toilet facilities, wash, dress, and avoid dangers in her immediate surroundings…is not educating such child within the meaning of the Education Code" • he "produces a depressing & nauseating effect upon the teachers and school children…[H]e takes up an undue portion of the teacher’s time and attention, distracts attention of other pupils, and interferes generally with the discipline and progress of the school" • too "weak minded" to profit from instruction

6. The “Early Days” • Other legislation was passed to: • Allow school authorities to judge whether the child could benefit from education or had "habits or bodily conditions detrimental to the school" • Prohibit attendance of any student "incapable of benefiting from a public school education" • Allow "certification" of incapability (to avoid prosecution of compulsory school attendance laws) • Prohibit parents to "persist in forcing…[the] attendance" of an excluded student with disabilities

7. The “Early Days” • In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, special schools and classes for students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, physical impairments, or mental retardation emerged, largely ue to the efforts of special interest groups, advocates, and dedicated parents.  These "services" were segregated and provided by insufficiently trained personnel.  Also, the services were limited because many communities had no facilities or services available.

8. Effect of the Civil Rights Movement • During this period of time, professional knowledge was improving and expanding, there were many social advancements, and several legal mandates were initiated by concerned parents, educators, and citizens. • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • This is a landmark case involving school desegregation that went before the U.S. Supreme court.   African-American children were denied admission to schools attended by White children under laws permitting racial segregation. 

9. Effect of the Civil Rights Movement • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (continued) • The main question asked in this case was "does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race…deprive the children of the minority group equal educational opportunities?"...The answer is YES! • The U.S. Supreme Court determined that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal

10. Effect of the Civil Rights Movement • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (continued) • Chief Justice Warren stated the following:  "Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities… In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity,…is a right which must be available to all on equal terms". (emphasis added)

11. Effect of the Civil Rights Movement • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (continued) • Despite the Brown decision, the U.S. Supreme Court was reluctant to interfere with similar educational issues, because the court felt the following:  1) they had a "lack of expert knowledge" in the area of education, 2) educational issues should be left to the discretion of school authorities and state law, and 3) there were no constitutional implications. • All of this began to change with the Civil Rights Movement...

12. Equal Educational Opportunity Movement • This involved a movement to procure equal educational opportunities • Discriminatory Tracking Hobson v. Hansen(1967) • In this case, students were placed in tracks based on an ability assessment, and once placed in a track, they remained there.  The assessments that these children received were normed on white, middle-class students.  The court stated that the school district lacked the ability to accurately determine the learning abilities of many students, therefore their placement in tracks was not justified.  In addition, the students placed in lower tracks received a limited curriculum, therefore certain groups of students were denied an equal educational opportunity.

13. Equal Educational Opportunity Movement • Culturally Biased Testing Diana v. State Board of Education (1970) • This is the case of a student who spoke Spanish, and received ability and achievement testing in English.  Not surprisingly, she tested poorly and was consequently placed in a class for students with mental retardation. 

14. Equal Educational Opportunity Movement • Language Minorities Lau v. Nichols (1974) • In this case, a school failed to provide remedial English instruction to non-English speaking students.  The court determined that this violated the Civil Rights Act of 1974 because 1) the students were denied the opportunity to participate in public education, and 2) the school failed to rectify the students' language deficiencies.

15. Equal Educational Opportunity Movement • Equal Expenditure of Funds San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1974) • In this case, individuals in a district who were poor claimed discrimination because the quality of education was based on the wealth of a district (they were a poor district and the quality of education in the district was poor).  The U.S. Supreme Court stated that disparity did not violate the constitution, as the constitution does not require absolute equality where wealth is concerned. 

16. A New Era!!! Wolf v. Legislature of the State of Utah • This case involved the parents of two children with mental retardation who filed suit because their children were denied an education.  The State of Utah had indicated that ALL children should be provide with a free education, and the parents of these children felt that their children had a right to these provisions as well. This decision upheld the Brown decision.

17. A New Era!!! Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(1972) • This is another landmark case...a class action suit was filed on behalf of all individuals with mental retardation, 6-21 years of age, who were excluded from public school • state law denied a public school education to children "unable to profit from public school attendance"

18. A New Era!!! Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(1972) (continued) • In segregation cases, courts would rule if it was "rational" or "necessary" to deny an education.  PARC claimed that it was neither rational nor necessary to assume that students with mental retardation were uneducable or untrainable, as education cannot be defined solely in terms of academic gains.  The State could not prove that these children were uneducable nor untrainable, therefore, they were also entitled to a free, public education!

19. A New Era!!! Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(1972) (continued) • this case revised the definition of equal opportunity • it also determined that educational services should be provided based on individualized need

20. A New Era!!! Mills v. Board of Education(1972) • In another landmark case, 7 students with learning and behavior problems were excluded from school because of a lack of funds in the district. • The court determined that the district must expend funds equitably to all students so they would receive a publicly funded education, and that financial problems cannot have greater impact on one class (group) of students • In this case, the court also outlined the due process procedures which were later included in federal mandates. 

21. Federal Legislation • Progress in this area was slow and uneven, in part due to lack of resources and enforcement procedures.  However, two major laws in effect have had a major impact on the education of students with disabilities.  We will be discussing each of these in much greater detail. 

22. Federal Legislation Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) • This law extends civil rights to people with disabilities.  Its compliance is monitored by the Office of Civil Rights.   • This law ensures program accessibility, a free, appropriate education, and general employment provisions.  • The law applies to colleges & other post-secondary institutions, and health, welfare, & social services agencies. 

23. Federal Legislation Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) (P.L. 94-142) (renamed IDEA) • This law IS special education!!!  It determines who receives special education services, who provides them, and how they are provided.  It is the most significant law in the history of educating people with disabilities.  This law has 6 major principles: • Zero Reject:  NO child with a disability may be excluded from receiving a "FREE, APPROPRIATE, PUBLIC EDUCATION (FAPE)" • Nondiscriminatory Testing:  any tests used for diagnostic purposes must be non-biased and administered in the child's native language; a single test score cannot be used as a basis for diagnosis of a disability and placement

24. Federal Legislation Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) (P.L. 94-142) (renamed IDEA) (continued) • Appropriate Education:  an individualized educational program (IEP) must be designed to meet the unique needs of each student • Least Restrictive Environment:  students with disabilities must be educated with students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate • Due Process:  refers to a legal technique that seeks to achieve fair treatment, accountability, and equal balance of power; students and their parents have a right to due process • Parental Participation:  the law requires collaboration with parents in the design and implementation of the IEP