A Thumbnail Sketch of Special Education Law

Four major pieces of legislation are the foundation for the current state of special education in America: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Of these laws IDEA has been the keystone in the structure of American special education, (Hulett, 2009).

IDEA first appeared as Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 with the purpose that all children with disabilities should be afforded both a free and appropriate education and that their rights are protected. Another function of the law was to support providers of special education, and to both monitor and assure its efficacy (Hopkins, 2011).

IDEA is organized in four parts covering general provisions, assistance for the both pre-school and school-aged children/young adults, and activities associated with providers of special education. This law is reliant on six pillars of support which interact to accomplish its goal of ensuring that children with disabilities have an equal opportunity to receive a public education as every other child in America. The six essential elements include an individualized education program which is tailored to an individual’s unique needs, and the guarantee of a free and appropriate education. Also incorporated in the structure of the law are the requirement of a least restrictive environment in the delivery of educational services, and the employment of appropriate evaluation of individual needs. Finally the statute provides for inclusion of the child and associated guardians in the formulation of educational goals, and procedural safeguards ensuring due process of law for both providers and recipients of educational services (Hulett, 2009).

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is essentially a general civil rights law which prohibits any entity that receives federal funding from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. This law preceded Public Law 94-142 and its implementation is unfunded, (Hulett, 2009). This flaw led to the detailed crafting of IDEA as a law specifically designed for public education. There are both similarities and differences between the two laws, but there exists a synergism when these laws are used in a complementary fashion to the benefit of the education of American students. Basically, students with disabilities have these two sources from which they can draw support in their quest for an appropriate education that will prepare them to function in society.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is another general civil rights law similar to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but with a broader defense from discrimination for individuals with disabilities. Specifically, instead of merely applying to entities which receives federal funding, the ADA both includes and affects the private sector and prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in areas of employment, public accommodations, public services, transportation, telecommunications, and other important areas of American life (Hulett, 2009).

The No Child Left Behind Act is focused on achievement and progress of American education. The concept of accountability of the education service providers for the learning of students is the driving force behind this legislation. Educators are required to meet educational standards set by the individual states and close gaps between subgroups of students with regard to racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and disability differences. The law is objective oriented in several stratified areas beginning with students reaching proficiency goals on standardized assessments, schools making annual yearly progress, and ultimately having all American students reaching a proficiency goal in both reading and mathematics by the close of the 2013-2014 school year. Failure on the part of the educators to meet the various standards results in such sanctions as the withholding of federal grants and the requirement to pay for tutoring services of their students, or transportation to better performing schools, (Hulett, 2009).

As a special education teacher in a public school I have firsthand experience in observing the achievement gaps between the sub groups of students, evaluating students, writing individual education programs, and teaching students with disabilities. These four laws under discussion have affected both my work on writing IEP’s and teaching in the classroom. I have felt the anxiety of accountability and have adapted my teaching of science to incorporate reading support within my lessons by having students derive meanings of words by their context within sentences. Also, while writing IEP’s I have had to be mindful of these laws and have been pressured to carefully craft them to meet the students’ needs without writing goals and offering services that I wasn’t certain that I could deliver.

For the most part I feel that the guidelines set by these laws were being kept by school to which I was assigned. The school’s special education services featured three observable levels in terms of restrictive environments. The most restrictive environment was the Life Skills setting. This was a self-contained classroom which housed students with low incidence disabilities diagnoses such as intellectual disability and hearing impairment. The next level was a group of students from each of the four high school grade levels with diagnoses such as specific learning disability and emotional disturbance. This group was taught all strictly academic subjects by special education teachers and was included in the mainstream of the student body for such class periods as gym, health, art, and lunch. The least restrictive environment was a situation where students who were diagnosed with a specific learning disability would only have difficulty with either English or math classes. These students were involved in one of two situations: one where they would have only one or two academic classes with the group that received instruction by only special education teachers, and the other where they received all academic instruction in the general education setting, but were closely monitored by their special education teacher case manager. 

We have come a long way since the days of institutionalizing the intellectually disabled and ignoring the learning disabled. My own children have benefited greatly from skilled special education teachers, and I aspire to be a positive influence on my students as well.

References

Hopkins, H. (2011). IDEA: Special education law [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
        https://blackboard.arcadia.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab tab group id=
        2 1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3type%3DCourse%
        26id%3D_78128_1%26url%3D.
Hulett, K. (2009). Legal aspects of special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
        Inc.