What do you think?
Rate this book
The Legal Foundations of Special Education: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher
This resource reviews the most influential laws affecting special education services and includes assessments to help readers evaluate their understanding of current legal practices.
112 pages, Paperback
First published March 13, 2006
1 person want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 21, 2013
1868 Equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the U.S Constitution
“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 the due process of the law nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
1950
Prior to the 1950’s most laws were directed at providing institutional care or rehabilitative
services
1954 Brown v. Board of Ed
Segregation of schools is illegal because it denies equal protection and equal opportunity
1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
Children are “persons” under the constitution and have civil rights independent of their
parents
1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Penn
In a far-reaching decision the court ordered that a free public education was to be provided
for students with CI/MR. For many historians of disability and education, this ruling was the
foundation on which the landmark PL.94-142- the Education for all Handicapped Act (EHA) PARCvC
integral in the development of the concept of LRE (Least Restrictive Environment) - as the
"appropriate" placement for students with disabilities,
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112) adopted in 1977
Illegal to deny participation in activities, benefits or programs, or in way to discriminate
against a person with a disability on the basis of that disability; must have equal access to
programs and services and auxiliary aids must be provided to individuals with impairment
needs. Not restricted to specific age group or education
Architectural accessibility-demands equal access to programs and services, not the elimination
of all such barriers but access point
Auxiliary aids-(e.g interpreters, readers) Does not mean that they are provided at all times
but that a student cannot be excluded because aid is not present
1974 Hairston v. Drosick
Exclusion of students with disabilities from the general education classroom without
procedural safeguards is a violation of their constitutional rights.
1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
(1)Assure all children with disabilities have available FAPE
(2)Assure rights of child w/ disabilities and parents are protected
(3)Assistance for state and localities to provide such education
(4)Assess the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities
Prior to passage of law many students with severe disabilities were not educated and were
relegated to the home or institution. FAPE was not guaranteed. Within the national interest to
meet the needs of the disabled.
FAPE- Free appropriate public education- Schools must have IEP (Individualized education
plans) for each student w/ disability. Parents have a right to be active, informed and ability
to challenge records/placement. States who did not comply threatened their federal funding.
Four provisions of the law:
(1) Individual Education Programs (IEP)
Document describing:
Present level of functioning, annual goals, short term objectives, services
to be provided, starting date/expected duration and evaluation
(measurable, observable goals based on performance written alongside description of services
to be provided; as assessed by a multidisciplinary team)
(2)Due Process
(3) Protection in evaluation procedures (PEP)
Assessment/evaluation practices must be fair with no racial or cultural bias, test
administered in native language- special education placement cannot be determines on the basis
of a single procedure. More than one test must be used. Students must be assessed in all areas
related to their specific disability.
(4) Least restrictive environment (mainstreaming)
States must have policies and procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are
educated with students who are not disabled. States must ensure that a child is removed from
general education only when the disability is severe enough that general education with
supplementary services is not effective
Students have the right to LRE (Least Restrictive Environment and must be assessed in s fair
and non-discriminatory way
Due Process Clause of Public Law 94-142
Parents, guardians and surrogates have right to examine child records, the right to
independent evaluations
(Prior to parents were not included/involved in the system)
1975 Right to Education Act
1982 Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley
Schools do not have to develop the maximum potential of students with disabilities; but they
must grant them access to educational opportunities.
1984Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
A service that enables a handicapped children to remain at school during the day is an
important means of providing the child with meaningful access to education…services that need
to be administered in order for the child to remain at school are no different than services
which enable a student to reach, enter and exist in the school
1985 Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education
The most important element of the EAHCA was the FAPE, wherever it takes place and the school
district may be obliged to pay for private schooling if the IEP is inadequate to provide FAPE
1986 Amendment to Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
Coverage extended to preschoolers and each school district must conduct a multidisciplinary
assessment and develop individuated family service plans (IFSP) for each preschool child w/ a
disability. State early intervention (Birth-2) programs are required to provide all eligible
infants and toddlers with multidisciplinary assessments, individualized programs and case
management services
Individuated family service plans (IFSP)-contracts between family and schools that provide
agreement on the kinds of services students will receive- similar to an IEP but includes
description of family needs
1988 Honig v. Doe
Schools cannot unilatteraly exclude students with disabilities, specifically those who have
emotional disturbances, because of their behavior
1989 Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District
Denied access to special education services because there was no indication that he would
benefit from them (Not educable). According to the court, federal law required school
districts to determine first whether a child would benefit in order to provide services.
Overruled, regardless of severity of disability or possible achievement level
Children must receive FAPE
1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336)
Prohibits discrimination(extend civil rights acts to disability) on the basis of disability in
employment, services rendered by state and local governments, place of public accommodation, transportation and telecommunication
1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 101-476)
Reauthorization of Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
Includes new disability categories (autism and brain traumatic injury), comprehensive new
definition on transition services (ensure smooth movement from school to post school
activities), Individualized transition plans (ITP) and includes provisions to make assistive
technology more widely available.
Law replaced handicapped children with children with disabilities
1997 Amendment to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (105-17)
Increase parental participation in evaluation process, placement decisions and program
planning. Includes change to three year reevaluation with the need for prior parental consent
and a streamlined process
2001 No Child Left Behind (107-110)
Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Acts with provisions including students
with disabilities.
Requires: annual assessments in math and reading in Grades 3-8 plus one year of high school,
literacy intervention through Reading First (designed to prevent reading difficulties and
enhance competencies inn early literacy) and Early Reading First, educator quality, strong
emphasis on scientific results, accountability entitlement to supplementary education services
and increased parent flexibility in schools performing poorly
(Students with disabilities included in accountability systems)
2004 Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)
Shift in focus from compliance to improved educational outcomes
“schools shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has severe
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension math
calculation, or mathematical reasoning.”
Students with disabilities must be taught by highly qualified teachers who have full
certification in special education or pass a state special education teacher licensing exam
New approaches to identifying students with LD, no discrepancy scores required
Fifteen percent of SE funds may got to providing support services in general education to
students not yet labeled as disabled
Requirement of having benchmarks and short term-objectives in IEPs deleted
Development of multiple-year IEP allowed on selective basis
Schools must appoint parent surrogate- disabled who are homeless or wards of the state
People present during IEP: Parents, Local education agency representative, special education
teacher, general education teacher, professional who can interpret institutional implication
of evaluation, student and others-at parents discretion
Changes to discipline policy:
Discipline similar to that of non-disabled with certain exceptions
(1)It a suspensions pf disciplinary placement is longer than ten days
school is required to provide educational services during that time
(2)Removed from school and placed in interim educational setting if in
possession of weapon or drugs
(3)May request expedited hearing if school concerned about potential risk
“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 the due process of the law nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
1950
Prior to the 1950’s most laws were directed at providing institutional care or rehabilitative
services
1954 Brown v. Board of Ed
Segregation of schools is illegal because it denies equal protection and equal opportunity
1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
Children are “persons” under the constitution and have civil rights independent of their
parents
1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Penn
In a far-reaching decision the court ordered that a free public education was to be provided
for students with CI/MR. For many historians of disability and education, this ruling was the
foundation on which the landmark PL.94-142- the Education for all Handicapped Act (EHA) PARCvC
integral in the development of the concept of LRE (Least Restrictive Environment) - as the
"appropriate" placement for students with disabilities,
1973 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112) adopted in 1977
Illegal to deny participation in activities, benefits or programs, or in way to discriminate
against a person with a disability on the basis of that disability; must have equal access to
programs and services and auxiliary aids must be provided to individuals with impairment
needs. Not restricted to specific age group or education
Architectural accessibility-demands equal access to programs and services, not the elimination
of all such barriers but access point
Auxiliary aids-(e.g interpreters, readers) Does not mean that they are provided at all times
but that a student cannot be excluded because aid is not present
1974 Hairston v. Drosick
Exclusion of students with disabilities from the general education classroom without
procedural safeguards is a violation of their constitutional rights.
1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
(1)Assure all children with disabilities have available FAPE
(2)Assure rights of child w/ disabilities and parents are protected
(3)Assistance for state and localities to provide such education
(4)Assess the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities
Prior to passage of law many students with severe disabilities were not educated and were
relegated to the home or institution. FAPE was not guaranteed. Within the national interest to
meet the needs of the disabled.
FAPE- Free appropriate public education- Schools must have IEP (Individualized education
plans) for each student w/ disability. Parents have a right to be active, informed and ability
to challenge records/placement. States who did not comply threatened their federal funding.
Four provisions of the law:
(1) Individual Education Programs (IEP)
Document describing:
Present level of functioning, annual goals, short term objectives, services
to be provided, starting date/expected duration and evaluation
(measurable, observable goals based on performance written alongside description of services
to be provided; as assessed by a multidisciplinary team)
(2)Due Process
(3) Protection in evaluation procedures (PEP)
Assessment/evaluation practices must be fair with no racial or cultural bias, test
administered in native language- special education placement cannot be determines on the basis
of a single procedure. More than one test must be used. Students must be assessed in all areas
related to their specific disability.
(4) Least restrictive environment (mainstreaming)
States must have policies and procedures to ensure that students with disabilities are
educated with students who are not disabled. States must ensure that a child is removed from
general education only when the disability is severe enough that general education with
supplementary services is not effective
Students have the right to LRE (Least Restrictive Environment and must be assessed in s fair
and non-discriminatory way
Due Process Clause of Public Law 94-142
Parents, guardians and surrogates have right to examine child records, the right to
independent evaluations
(Prior to parents were not included/involved in the system)
1975 Right to Education Act
1982 Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley
Schools do not have to develop the maximum potential of students with disabilities; but they
must grant them access to educational opportunities.
1984Irving Independent School District v. Tatro
A service that enables a handicapped children to remain at school during the day is an
important means of providing the child with meaningful access to education…services that need
to be administered in order for the child to remain at school are no different than services
which enable a student to reach, enter and exist in the school
1985 Burlington School Committee v. Massachusetts Department of Education
The most important element of the EAHCA was the FAPE, wherever it takes place and the school
district may be obliged to pay for private schooling if the IEP is inadequate to provide FAPE
1986 Amendment to Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
Coverage extended to preschoolers and each school district must conduct a multidisciplinary
assessment and develop individuated family service plans (IFSP) for each preschool child w/ a
disability. State early intervention (Birth-2) programs are required to provide all eligible
infants and toddlers with multidisciplinary assessments, individualized programs and case
management services
Individuated family service plans (IFSP)-contracts between family and schools that provide
agreement on the kinds of services students will receive- similar to an IEP but includes
description of family needs
1988 Honig v. Doe
Schools cannot unilatteraly exclude students with disabilities, specifically those who have
emotional disturbances, because of their behavior
1989 Timothy W. v. Rochester, New Hampshire, School District
Denied access to special education services because there was no indication that he would
benefit from them (Not educable). According to the court, federal law required school
districts to determine first whether a child would benefit in order to provide services.
Overruled, regardless of severity of disability or possible achievement level
Children must receive FAPE
1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336)
Prohibits discrimination(extend civil rights acts to disability) on the basis of disability in
employment, services rendered by state and local governments, place of public accommodation, transportation and telecommunication
1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 101-476)
Reauthorization of Education for All Handicapped Children Act PL 94-142
Includes new disability categories (autism and brain traumatic injury), comprehensive new
definition on transition services (ensure smooth movement from school to post school
activities), Individualized transition plans (ITP) and includes provisions to make assistive
technology more widely available.
Law replaced handicapped children with children with disabilities
1997 Amendment to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (105-17)
Increase parental participation in evaluation process, placement decisions and program
planning. Includes change to three year reevaluation with the need for prior parental consent
and a streamlined process
2001 No Child Left Behind (107-110)
Reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Acts with provisions including students
with disabilities.
Requires: annual assessments in math and reading in Grades 3-8 plus one year of high school,
literacy intervention through Reading First (designed to prevent reading difficulties and
enhance competencies inn early literacy) and Early Reading First, educator quality, strong
emphasis on scientific results, accountability entitlement to supplementary education services
and increased parent flexibility in schools performing poorly
(Students with disabilities included in accountability systems)
2004 Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)
Shift in focus from compliance to improved educational outcomes
“schools shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has severe
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension math
calculation, or mathematical reasoning.”
Students with disabilities must be taught by highly qualified teachers who have full
certification in special education or pass a state special education teacher licensing exam
New approaches to identifying students with LD, no discrepancy scores required
Fifteen percent of SE funds may got to providing support services in general education to
students not yet labeled as disabled
Requirement of having benchmarks and short term-objectives in IEPs deleted
Development of multiple-year IEP allowed on selective basis
Schools must appoint parent surrogate- disabled who are homeless or wards of the state
People present during IEP: Parents, Local education agency representative, special education
teacher, general education teacher, professional who can interpret institutional implication
of evaluation, student and others-at parents discretion
Changes to discipline policy:
Discipline similar to that of non-disabled with certain exceptions
(1)It a suspensions pf disciplinary placement is longer than ten days
school is required to provide educational services during that time
(2)Removed from school and placed in interim educational setting if in
possession of weapon or drugs
(3)May request expedited hearing if school concerned about potential risk
Displaying 1 of 1 review