# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how poorly treated kids were treated. being put into tiny jails with out decent food, clothes or , hygiene.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
history of
devery r. mock
jennifer j. jakubecy
james m. kauffman

current trends
jennifer j. jakubecy
devery r. mock
james m. kauffman

preparation of teachers
paul t. sindelar
mary t. brownell

international context

paul ackerman
robert jaeger
anne smith

HISTORY OF

Special education, as its name suggests, is a specialized branch of education. Claiming lineage to such persons as Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard (17751838), the physician who "tamed" the "wild boy of Aveyron," and Anne Sullivan Macy (18661936), the teacher who "worked miracles" with Helen Keller, special educators teach those students who have physical, cognitive, language, learning, sensory, and/or emotional abilities that deviate from those of the general population. Special educators provide instruction specifically tailored to meet individualized needs, making education available to students who otherwise would have limited access to education. In 2001, special education in the United States was serving over five million students.

Although federally mandated special education is relatively new in the United States, students with disabilities have been present in every era and in every society. Historical records have consistently documented the most severe disabilitiesthose that transcend task and setting. Itard's description of the wild boy of Aveyron documents a variety of behaviors consistent with both mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Nineteenth-century reports of deviant behavior describe conditions that could easily be interpreted as severe mental retardation, autism, or schizophrenia. Milder forms of disability became apparent only after the advent of universal public education. When literacy became a goal for all children, teachers began observing disabilities specific to task and settingthat is, less severe disabilities. After decades of research and legislation, special education now provides services to students with varying degrees and forms of disabilities, including mental retardation, emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, speech-language (communication) disabilities, impaired hearing and deafness, low vision and blindness, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, and severe and multiple disabilities.

Development of the Field of Special Education

At its inception in the early nineteenth century, leaders of social change set out to cure many ills of society. Physicians and clergy, including Itard, Edouard O. Seguin (18121880), Samuel Gridley Howe (18011876), and Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet (17871851), wanted to ameliorate the neglectful, often abusive treatment of individuals with disabilities. A rich literature describes the treatment provided to individuals with disabilities in the 1800s: They were often confined in jails and almshouses without decent food, clothing, personal hygiene, and exercise. During much of the nineteenth century, and early in the twentieth, professionals believed individuals with disabilities were best treated in residential facilities in rural environments. Advocates of these institutions argued that environmental conditions such as urban poverty and vices induced behavioral problems. Reformers such as Dorothea Dix (18021887) prevailed upon state governments to provide funds for bigger and more specialized institutions. These facilities focused more on a particular disability, such as mental retardation, then known as "feeble-mindedness" or "idiocy"; mental illness, then labeled "insanity" or "madness"; sensory impairment such as deafness or blindness; and behavioral disorders such as criminality and juvenile delinquency. Children who were judged to be delinquent or aggressive, but not insane, were sent to houses ofrefuge or reform schools, whereas children and adults judged to be "mad" were admitted to psychiatric hospitals. Dix and her followers believed that institutionalization of individuals with disabilities would end their abuse (confinement without treatment in jails and poorhouses) and provide effective treatment. Moral treatment was the dominant approach of the early nineteenth century in psychiatric hospitals, the aim being cure. Moral treatment employed methods analogous to today's occupational therapy, systematic instruction, and positive reinforcement. Evidence suggests this approach was humane and effective in some cases, but the treatment was generally abandoned by the late nineteenth century, due largely to the failure of moral therapists to train others in their techniques and the rise of the belief that mental illness was always a result of brain disease.

By the end of the nineteenth century, pessimism about cure and emphasis on physiological causes led to a change in orientation that would later bring about the "warehouse-like" institutions that have become a symbol for abuse and neglect of society's most vulnerable citizens. The practice of moral treatment was replaced by the belief that most disabilities were incurable. This led to keeping individuals with disabilities ininstitutions both for their own protection and for the betterment of society. Although the transformation took many years, by the end of the nineteenth century the size of institutions had increased so dramatically that the goal of rehabilitation was no longer possible. Institutions became instruments for permanent segregation. Many special education professionals became critics of institutions. Howe, one of the first to argue for in stitutions for people with disabilities, began advocating placing out residents into families. Unfortunately this practice became a logistical and pragmatic problem before it could become a viable alternative to institutionalization.

At the close of the nineteenth century, state governments established juvenile courts and social welfare programs, including foster homes, for children and adolescents. The child study movement became prominent in the early twentieth century. Using the approach pioneered by G. Stanley Hall (18441924; considered the founder of child psychology), researchers attempted to study child development scientifically in relation to education and in so doing established a place for psychology within public schools. In 1931, the Bradley Home, the first psychiatric hospital for children in the United States, was established in East Providence, Rhode Island. The treatment offered in this hospital, as well as most of the other hospitals of the early twentieth century, was psychodynamic. Psychodynamic ideas fanned interest in the diagnosis and classification of disabili ties. In 1951 the first institution for research on exceptional children opened at the University of Illinois and began what was to become the newest focus of the field of special education: the slow learner and, eventually, what we know today as learning disability.

The Development of Special Education in Institutions and Schools

Although Itard failed to normalize Victor, the wild boy of Averyon, he did produce dramatic changes in Victor's behavior through education. Modern special education practices can be traced to Itard, and his work marks the beginning of widespread attempts to instruct students with disabilities. In 1817 the first special education school in the United States, the American Asylum for the Education and Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb (now called the American School for the Deaf), was established in Hartford, Connecticut, by Gallaudet. By the middle of the nineteenth century, special educational programs were being provided in many asylums. Education was a prominent part of moral therapy. By the close of the nineteenth century, special classes within regular public schools had been launched in major cities. These special classes were initially established for immigrant students who were not proficient in English and students who had mild mental retardation or behavioral disorders. Descriptions of these children included terms such as steamer children, backward, truant, and incorrigible. Procedures for identifying "defectives" were included in the World's Fair of 1904. By the 1920s special classes for students judged unsuitable for regular classes had become common in major cities.

In 1840 Rhode Island passed a law mandating compulsory education for children, but not all states had compulsory education until 1918. With compulsory schooling and the swelling tide of anti-institution sentiment in the twentieth century, many children with disabilities were moved out of institutional settings and into public schools. However, by the mid-twentieth century children with disabilities were still often excluded from public schools and kept at home if not institutionalized. In order to respond to the new population of students with special needs entering schools, school officials created still more special classes in public schools.

The number of special classes and complementary support services (assistance given to teachers in managing behavior and learning problems) increased dramatically after World War II. During the early 1900s there was also an increased attention to mental health and a consequent interest in establishing child guidance clinics. By 1930 child guidance clinics and counseling services were relatively common features of major cities, and by 1950 special education had become an identifiable part of urban public education in nearly every school district. By 1960 special educators were instructing their students in a continuum of settings that included hospital schools for those with the most severe disabilities, specialized day schools for students with severe disabilities who were able to live at home, and special classes in regular public schools for students whose disabilities could be managed in small groups. During this period special educators also began to take on the role of consultant, assisting other teachers in instructing students with disabilities. Thus, by 1970 the field of special education was offering a variety of educational placements to students with varying disabilities and needs; however, public schools were not yet required to educate all students regardless of their disabilities.

During the middle decades of the twentieth century, instruction of children with disabilities often was based on process trainingwhich involves attempts to improve children's academic performance by teaching them cognitive or motor processes, such as perceptualmotor skills, visual memory, auditory memory, or auditory-vocal processing. These are ancient ideas that found twentieth-century proponents. Process training enthusiasts taught children various perceptual skills (e.g., identifying different sounds or objects by touch) or perceptual motor skills (e.g., balancing) with the notion that fluency in these skills would generalize to reading, writing, arithmetic, and other basic academic tasks. After many years of research, however, such training was shown not to be effective in improving academic skills. Many of these same ideas were recycled in the late twentieth century as learning styles, multiple intelligences, and other notions that the underlying process of learning varies with gender, ethnicity, or other physiological differences. None of these theories has found much support in reliable research, although direct instruction, mnemonic (memory) devices, and a few other instructional strategies have been supported reliably by research.

The History of Legislation in Special Education

Although many contend that special education was born with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, it is clear that special educators were beginning to respond to the needs of children with disabilities in public schools nearly a century earlier. It is also clear that EAHCA did not spring from a vacuum. This landmark law naturally evolved from events in both special education and the larger society and came about in large part due to the work of grass roots organizations composed of both parents and professionals. These groups dated back to the 1870s, when the American Association of Instructors of the Blind and the American Association on Mental Deficiency (the latter is now the American Association on Mental Retardation) were formed. In 1922 the Council for Exceptional Children, now the major professional organization of special educators, was organized. In the 1930s and 1940s parent groups began to band together on a national level. These groups worked to make changes in their own communities and, consequently, set the stage for changes on a national level. Two of the most influential parent advocacy groups were the National Association for Retarded Citizens (now ARC/USA), organized in 1950, and the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, organized in 1963.

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, advocacy groups were securing local ordinances that would protect and serve individuals with disabilities in their communities. For example, in 1930, in Peoria, Illinois, the first white cane ordinance gave individuals with blindness the right-of-way when crossing the street. By mid-century all states had legislation providing for education of students with disabilities. However, legislation was still noncompulsory. In the late 1950s federal money was allocated for educating children with disabilities and for the training of special educators. Thus the federal government became formally involved in research and in training special education professionals, but limited its involvement to these functions until the 1970s. In 1971, this support was reinforced and extended to the state level when the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) filed a class action suit against their Commonwealth. This suit, resolved by consent agreement, specified that all children age six through twenty-one were to be provided free public education in the least restrictive alternative (LRA, which would later become the least restrictive environment [LRE] clause in EAHCA). In 1973 the Rehabilitation Act prohibited discriminatory practices in programs receiving federal financial assistance but imposed no affirmative obligations with respect to special education.

In 1975 the legal action begun under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations resulted in EAHCA, which was signed into law by President Gerald Ford. EAHCA reached full implementation in 1977 and required school districts to provide free and appropriate education to all of their students with disabilities. In return for federal funding, each state was to ensure that students with disabilities received non-discriminatory testing, evaluation, and placement; the right to due process; education in the least restrictive environment; and a free and appropriate education. The centerpiece of this public law (known since 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) was, and is, a free appropriate public education (FAPE). To ensure FAPE, the law mandated that each student receiving special education receive an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Under EAHCA, students with identified disabilities were to receive FAPE and an IEP that included relevant instructional goals and objectives, specifications as to length of school year, determination of the most appropriate educational placement, and descriptions of criteria to be used in evaluation and measurement. The IEP was designed to ensure that all students with disabilities received educational programs specific to their "unique" needs. Thus, the education of students with disabilities became federally controlled. In the 1982 case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the level of services to be afforded students with special needs and ruled that special education services need only provide some "educational benefit" to studentspublic schools were not required to maximize the educational progress of students with disabilities. In so doing the Supreme Court further defined what was meant by a free and appropriate education. In 1990 EAHCA was amended to include a change to person-first language, replacing the term handicapped student with student with disabilities. The 1990 amendments also added new classification categories for students with autism and traumatic brain injury and transition plans within IEPs for students age fourteen or older. In 1997, IDEA was reauthorized under President Clinton and amended to require the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide and districtwide assessments, measurable IEP goals and objectives, and functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans for students with emotional or behavioral needs. Because IDEA is amended and reauthorized every few years, it is impossible to predict the future of this law. It is possible that it will be repealed or altered dramatically by a future Congress. The special education story, both past and future, can be written in many different ways.

Trends in Special Education

Researchers have conceptualized the history of special education in stages that highlight the various trends that the field has experienced. Although some of these conceptualizations focus on changes involving instructional interventions for students with disabilities, others focus on the place of interventions. The focus on placement reflects the controversy in which the field of special education has found itself throughout history. Samuel G. Howe was one of the first to assertin the nineteenth centurythat instructional settings had inherent qualities that alone insured effective interventions. Belief in the essential curative powers of place spurred the late nineteenth century crusade for bigger and better institutions, as well as the mid-twentieth-century movement for deinstitutionalization. Exclusive focus on the importance of place distracted many professionals and prevented them from recognizing that dramatic changes in philosophy were accompanying the movement for deinstitutionalization. In the late nineteenth century, social Darwinism replaced environmentalism as the primary causal explanation for those individuals with abilities who deviated from those of the general population, opening the door to the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, and leading to the segregation and sterilization of individuals with mental retardation. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the debate had suddenly shifted from whether the disadvantaged should be helped to where these individuals should be served. As the institutionalization versus deinstitutionalization debate raged, many individuals were given custodial treatment, which is contrary to the mission of special education.

Almost a century after the placement debate began, special educators still focused on the importance of place. Many were calling upon the field to create not one perfect setting for the delivery of services, but a continuum of placement options that would address the needs of all students with disabilities. The civil rights movement had reconceptualized special education as a case of access of minorities to the educational privileges of the majority, and the least restrictive environment clause of EAHCA/IDEA prompted advocates for people with disabilities to call for mainstreaming the return of students with disabilities to the regular classroom whenever and wherever possible. In the 1980s the Regular Education Initiative (REI) was an attempt to return responsibility for the education of students with disabilities to neighborhood schools and regular classroom teachers. In the 1990s the full inclusion movement called for educating all students with disabilities in the regular classroom with a single, unified and responsive education system. Advocates for full inclusion, following in the footsteps of Howe, argued for appropriate instruction in a single, ubiquitous place, contrary to the mandate of IDEA.

Controversial Issues in Special Education

Special education has been the target of criticism throughout history. Some of the criticism has been justified, some unjustified. Some criticisms brought to light ineffective practices, such as the inefficacy and inhumanity of relegating all persons with disabilities to institutions. Other criticisms were distractions with disastrous repercussions, such as the singular focus on the importance of place while ignoring other inappropriate practices. The beginning of the twenty-first century found new criticisms being launched at special education. Some argue that the use of diagnostic labels is potentially stigmatizing to students, others that minority students are overrepresented in some disability categories, and still others that education of students with disabilities in special classes and schools, even pulling students out for instruction in resource classes, is akin to race-based segregation. Some of these criticisms may expose ineffective practices, others may only distract educators from the effort of finding and implementing effective instructional practices. Professionals must develop the ability to learn from history and differentiate between unimportant criticisms and those with merit.

One valid criticism repeatedly launched against special education involves the implementation of ineffective educational interventions. Although great concern about the where of instruction was expressed in the 1980s and 1990s, little attention was given to the what of instruction. Throughout the twentieth century the field of special education repeatedly adopted instructional strategies of questionable efficacyinterventions that have little to no empirical basis. Additionally, special educators have adopted, with "bandwagon" fervor, many practices that have been proven ineffective and have thereby repeated the mistakes of history. If special education is to progress, professionals will need to address and remedy the instructional practices used with students with disabilities.

Special education has also been validly criticized for the way in which students with disabilities are identified. In the early nineteenth century, physicians and educators had difficulty making reliable distinctions between different disability categories. In fact, the categories of mental retardation and behavioral disorders are inseparably intertwined. Many of the disability categories overlap to the extent that it is hard to differentiate one from the other. Additionally, some of the categories learning disabilities and behavioral disorders, for exampleare defined by the exclusion of other contributing disabilities. Thus, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, much work remains on the identification of students with disabilities.

Perhaps the largest, most pervasive issue in special education is its relationship to general education. The relationship of special to general education has been controversial since the beginning of universal public schooling. However, in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the question of whether special education should retain a separate identity or be fused with general education such that it has no separate identity (e.g., budget, personnel) was made prominent by proponents of a radical restructuring of special education. Proponents of radical restructuring and fusion argue that such integration is necessary to provide appropriate education for all students regardless of their disabilities and without stigma or discrimination. In their view, special education suffers primarily from structural problems, and the integration of two separate systems will result in a flexible, supple, responsive single system that will meet the needs of all students without "separating out" any. All teachers, according to this line of thinking, should be prepared to teach all students, including those with special needs.

Opponents of radical restructuring argue that special education's problems are primarily the lack of implementation of best practices, not structural. Moreover, they suggest, special education will not survive to serve the special needs of exceptional students if it loses its identity, including special budget allocations and personnel preparation. It is not feasible nor is it desirable, they contend, to prepare all teachers to teach all children; special training is required to teach students who are educationally exceptional. Arguments about the structure of education (special and general), who (if anyone) should receive special treatment, how they should be taught, and where special services should be provided are perpetual issues in special education. These issues will likely continue to be debated throughout the twenty-first century.

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, another issue became the basis for conceptual or theoretical bases for special education practices. Postmodern and antiscientific philosophies have been put forward in both general and special education. These ideas have been challenged by others who have noted the importance of the scientific method in discriminating among ideas and assertions. Likely, postmodern ideas and attempts to apply them to or refute them will be perpetual.

See also: Adapted Physical Education; Assistive Technology; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Council for Exceptional Children; Emotionally Disturbed, Education of; Hearing Impairment; Learning Disabilities, Education of Individuals with; Mental Retardation, Education of Individuals with; Severe and Multiple Disabilities, Education of Individuals with; Special Education, subentry on Current Trends; Speech and Language Impairment, Education of Individuals with; Visual Impairments, Education of Individuals with.

bibliography

Bateman, Barbara D., and Linden, Mary A. 1998. Better IEPs: How to Develop Legally Correct and Educationally Useful Programs, 3rd edition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Bockoven, J. Sanbourne. 1956. "Moral Treatment in American Psychiatry." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 124:167194, 292321.

Bockoven, J. Sanbourne. 1972. Moral Treatment in Community Mental Health. New York: Springer.

Crockett, Jean B., and Kauffman, James M. 1999. The Least Restrictive Environment: Its Origins and Interpretations in Special Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hallahan, Daniel P., and Kauffman, James M. 2000. Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education, 8th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kauffman, James M. 1981. "Historical Trends and Contemporary Issues in Special Education in the United States." In Handbook of Special Education, ed. James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kauffman, James M. 2001. Characteristics of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and Youth, 7th edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kauffman, James M., and Hallahan, Daniel P., eds. 1995. The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Kauffman, James M., and Smucker, Karen. 1995. "The Legacies of Placement: A Brief History of Placement Options and Issues with Commentary on Their Evolution." In Issues in Educational Placement: Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, ed. James. M. Kauffman, John W. Lloyd, Daniel P. Hallahan, and Terry A. Astuto. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Koertge, Noretta, ed. 1998. A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lloyd, John W.; Repp, Alan C.; and Singh, Nirbhay N., eds. 1991. The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative Perspectives on Concepts, Issues, and Methods. Dekalb, IL: Sycamore.

Macmillan, Donald L., and Hendrick, Irwing G. 1993. "Evolution and Legacies." In Integrating General and Special Education, ed. J. I. Goodlad and T. C. Lovitt. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Mann, Lester. 1979. On the Trail of Process: A Historical Perspective on Cognitive Processes and Their Training. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Peters, Michael, ed. 1995. Education and the Postmodern Condition. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Smith, J. David, ed. 1998. "The History of Special Education: Essays Honoring the Bicentennial of the Work of Jean Itard." Remedial and Special Education 19 (4).

Stainback, William, and Stainback, Susan. 1991. "A Rational for Integration and Restructuring: A Synopsis" In The Regular Education Initiative: Alternative Perspectives on Concepts, Issues, and Models, ed. John. W. Lloyd, Nirbhay N. Singh, and Alan C. Repp. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.

Wiederholt, J. Lee. 1974. "Historical Perspectives on the Education of the Learning Disabled." In The Second Review of Special Education, ed. Lester Mann and David. A. Sabatino. Philadelphia: JSE Press.

Winzer, Margaret A. 1993. History of Special Education from Isolation to Integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Devery R. Mock

Jennifer J. Jakubecy

James M. Kauffman

CURRENT TRENDS

Special Education in the Context of School Reform

School reform has been a buzzword since the early 1980s, but special education was not often included in discussions of reform until about the turn of the twentieth century. In the early years of the twenty-first century, two of the most prominent school reform agendas having significant effects on special education were standards-based education and school choice.

Standards-based education. Standards-based reforms aim to improve school performance and use accountability systems to enforce the standards. Historically, schools have not included students with disabilities in accountability systems. By amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, the federal government mandated that students with disabilities be included in district and state assessments. Local schools can face severe sanctions for inadequate test scores, including loss of accreditation and funding. Schools thus resist including lower scores that may bring down a school's average. Opponents argue that including students with disabilities on standards-based assessments creates an overemphasis on academic skills, when vocational or functional skills might better prepare the student for postsecondary school options other than higher education. Proponents believe that inclusion of students with disabilities on high-stakes tests increases school accountability and ensures access for students with disabilities to the general curriculum.

School-choice reform. School-choice reform focuses on the freedom of students to choose from a variety of alternatives to general public education. One trend is charter schools, which are publicly funded but follow a charter constructed by the school rather than by local government. Another form of school choice allows students to choose any public school within their designated district or cross district lines to attend another school. Choice may also involve magnet schools that offer special programs or concentrations, such as science and technology or performing arts. Open enrollment allows students to attend any public school in the state. Vouchers provide students with a designated amount of money to spend in any way on education, including private schools or home schooling. Other school choice alternatives are second-chance options (students may enter an alternative school or program) and workplace training (students learn a skilled trade through an apprenticeship).

School choice affects special education when restrictions are placed on entry into particular schools. For example, should a student with mental retardation be allowed to attend a science and technology magnet school? Should a student with severe emotional and behavioral disabilities be allowed to attend a charter school emphasizing visual and performing arts? If not, then school choice might be said to be an exclusionary and elitist system in which students with disabilities are denied an equal education.

School-choice proponents argue that no single educational program works for all students, thus it benefits children, including students with disabilities, to be able to choose the school that best meets their needs. Also, school choice provides options for students who might otherwise drop out of the public system and helps address issues such as racial and socioeconomic balance in schools.

Placement

The debate about where a student with disabilities is best served is one of the most volatile issues in special education. The controversy is whether full inclusion or a continuum of alternative placements is better.

Full inclusion. In full inclusion, all studentsregardless of disability, health needs, academic ability, service needs, and, often, preference of parent or studentare educated full-time in a general education class in their neighborhood school (the school they would attend had they no disability). In this model, the child receives special education support services in the general education classroom. Full inclusion requires either a team-teaching approach or consultation of the regular classroom teacher with a special educator. In team teaching, a classroom will have both a general education teacher and a special education teacher equally sharing the responsibility to teach the whole class. In consultation, a special education teacher works with many general education teachers, meeting with them and answering questions as needed or on a regular schedule.

Proponents of full inclusion believe that pulling a child out of the classroom to provide special education services or placing the child in a self-contained classroom or special school is inherently unequal and inferior and, therefore, immoral. They also argue that both the student with disabilities and his or her peers benefit from full inclusion, an argument that often places greater emphasis on social interaction than academic achievement.

Full continuum of placements. Proponents of a full continuum of alternative placements, required by IDEA, note that since 1975 the law has mandated a continuum of placements including placement: (1) full-time in a general education classroom; (2) parttime in a special education resource room; (3) fulltime in a special education self-contained classroom;(4) in a separate special education school; (5) at a residential facility; and (6) homebound or in a hospital. They agree that full-time placement in general education is appropriate for some students, but not for every student with disabilities. Proponents argue that in accordance with IDEA each student should be assessed and placed individually. Many students with disabilities commonly need a more structured and clearly defined environment, either academically or behaviorally, than a general education classroom can provide. Also, students with severe emotional or behavioral disabilities can infringe on other students' education in a general education classroom by either monopolizing a teacher's attention or by placing peers and teachers in physical danger. While believing that students should be educated in the least restrictive environment with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, proponents of the continuum also believe that it is immoral and illegal to place every student in the exact same placement regardless of individual needs.

The Name Game

Controversies surrounding labels and categories of disabilities are a major concern to parents and professionals. One issue is whether students should be labeled at all. Proponents of labels such as learning disabled, deaf, or autistic believe that these labels provide a common ground for professionals, researchers, and parents to discuss practices and share knowledge about particular disabilities. Labels help teachers and administrators prepare for and provide a student with an appropriate education. Schools can better manage their budgets if they can quantify and describe the students needing additional funds and services.

Opponents of labels argue that labels permanently stigmatize the student. They believe that teachers and administrators lower their expectations of a labeled student, creating a vicious cycle in which the student is given fewer and fewer challenges and falls further behind grade level.

An extension of the labeling issue is categorical versus noncategorical labeling. Categorical labeling specifies a disability based on categories in IDEA. Noncategorical labeling tags a student as disabled or developmentally delayed without specifying the precise disability. Nondescript labels can provide educators and parents additional time to observe and evaluate the child before making a decision on disability type. Though this can help avoid mislabeling, the benefits of categorical labeling are lost.

Disability Classifications

Some disabilities can be measured and defined objectively, and thus are easily identifiable. If a child is classified as blind, there is usually agreement about what blindness means and whether the child qualifies for special education or other services. However, many disabilities are not easy to identify and label. Judgmental categories such as learning disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, autism, and giftedness require professional judgment and subjective analysis. Severe and multiple disabilities, though often easier to identify, also create controversies because judgment is required to distinguish the level of disability (mild, moderate, or severe).

Learning disability. The majority of students categorically labeled have learning disabilities (LD). This is ironic because LD is one of the most difficult disabilities to define. Some individuals believe that LD is simply a social construct for those students who have not had adequate instruction. Another concern is that the IDEA definition describes what LD is not, rather than what it is, leaving localities with the task of finding a workable definition. Most localities define LD using a discrepancy between the student's actual achievement and the student's presumed ability or IQ. The problem is that not all localities use the same discrepancy standard or the same tests to measure achievement and ability and discrepancy scores have inherent limitations.

Mental retardation. Mental retardation (MR) is identified by below average intellectual ability and poor adaptive behavior that is pervasive in all areas of life. Intellectual ability and adaptive behavior can both be ambiguous, as different tests yield different intelligence quotients and assessment of adaptive behavior requires subjective judgment. A disproportionately large number of children from minority populations and low socioeconomic status are identified as having mental retardation, giving rise to the argument that identification of mental retardation is biased (too many African-American and Latino students and too many poor students are identified, but too few children of Asian descent are identified).

Emotional disturbance. Emotional disturbance refers to severe and protracted difficulties in relationships with other people. Controversies abound regarding who should be included in the category of emotional disturbance (ED). IDEA excludes from ED students who are socially maladjusted but not emotionally disturbed, but it does not define social maladjustment. Confounding the problem is another clause describing ED as "an inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships with peers and teachers," which can be interpreted to mean social maladjustment. Thus the language of the law seems self-contradictory. Another issue in ED is disagreement on the actual number of students with this disorder. Many estimates based on prevalence studies range from 6 to 25 percent of the student population, but less that 1 percent of the school population has been identified as having ED for special education purposes.

Autism. Autism is a pervasive developmental disability affecting approximately one in 500 children. Its onset is noted before the age of three years. Professionals find it hard to agree on a definition. One of the main controversies in definition involves the closely related syndromes of Asperger's and Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD). There is great confusion and disagreement as to whether these are separate disabilities or different levels of severity of autism. Causes as well as the best treatments are also disputed for each.

Attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have always been controversial. One reason for this is that the characteristics of ADD/ADHD, including careless mistakes on school work, forgetting daily activities, fidgeting with hands or feet, or talking excessively, can describe an average child. What makes a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD difficult is determining whether these characteristics are beyond normal for the student's age and have become a disability. In fact, some professionals argue that ADD/ADHD does not exist and that the label is used haphazardly on students who simply exhibit inappropriate behavior and a lack of discipline. Furthermore, IDEA does not acknowledge ADD/ADHD as a separate category but includes it under "other health impaired" (OHI). There is also a growing concern that too many children are being medicated for ADD/ADHD.

Gifts and talents. Gifts and talents are the opposite of disabilities, but some, if not all, of the same issues discussed previously apply (e.g., stigma of identification, judgment in assessment). Opponents of special programs for gifted and talented students argue that separating them from their nongifted classmates is elitist and that all students should be exposed to a superior, highly challenging education. A disproportionately high number of Caucasian and Asian students are identified as gifted, while a disproportionately low number of African-American and Hispanic students are found eligible for gifted programs. Proponents of special education for gifted students believe that these students need a special curriculum. Gifted students who are asked to work below their ability level or tutor their less gifted peers become bored and lose motivation. Identifying gifted students is also difficult because there is not one universally accepted definition, nor is gifted a category acknowledged under IDEA. The decision to provide gifted education and to determine what qualifies a student as gifted is often a local responsibility.

Severe and multiple disabilities. Compared to other conditions, there is less uncertainty in the identification of students with severe and multiple disabilities (SMD). Increased numbers of children identified as having SMD, however, is a fairly new trend in special education. Advances in medicine and technology are helping more children than ever before survive serious medical emergencies and severe injuries. This increase has spurred changes in special education and has placed new demands on personnel and the physical environment. These children often need assistive and medical technology in the classroom, as well as personnel knowledgeable about this equipment. Some of these students need continuous support from a classroom assistant, especially when included in general education.

Trends in the Classroom

Three trends in special education have especially significant influence on the classroom environment:(1) early intervention and prevention, (2) technology, and (3) transition plans.

Early intervention and prevention. Early intervention and prevention of disabilities are not new ideas, but they have experienced increasing emphasis. Schools are realizing that early intervention and prevention not only benefit children in the long run but save money as well by reducing the later need for costly services. Two significant issues are the appropriate role for the family of the child and whether the intervention should be child-centered or teacherdirected. In addition, obstacles to early intervention and prevention are still being addressed.

Technology. Technology permeates our society with increasing intensity and reaches into classrooms. It helps students overcome limitations previously placed on them by a disability. Computer programs allow keyboarding and navigation of the Internet by eye movements. Cochlear implants allow deaf students to hear, and new prosthetics (artificial body parts) provide greater mobility and participation in education and society.

Transition. The 1997 amendments to IDEA added two mandates related to transition from one school setting to another or from school to work. The first amendment requires transition-planning conferences for children exiting early intervention programs, the second is a statement of needed services for the transition from high school to higher education or work in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for students age fourteen or older. Other forms of transition planning, such as from middle school to high school or from a self-contained or restrictive environment to a less restrictive environment, are also becoming common.

Special Education Teachers

Debate also exists over categorical or noncategorical licensure. Proponents of categorical licensure argue that each disability category is substantially different from others and that teachers should be highly specialized in that area. Proponents of noncategorical licensure argue that teachers should be prepared to teach all children and should have the expertise to address differing abilities and disabilities.

A closely related issue is a trend in higher education to merge the special education teacher program into the general education program, doing away with special education altogether. The arguments for and against this teacher education structure are similar to those for categorical versus noncategorical licensure.

Funding Issues

Funding issues and controversies beset all areas of education, including special education. Because special education requires services above those specified in the general education curriculum, additional funding is critical. When IDEA was first enacted in 1975, the federal government acknowledged this additional need by promising to supplement 40 percent of the excess costs incurred in implementing the act's mandates. Unfortunately, the federal government has never come close to fulfilling this promise. Over the years, however, there has been a greater effort to provide these funds to the states.

Conclusion

These controversies and issues, although the most widespread and disputed issues facing special education, represent only a small fraction of the numerous issues permeating special education today. School reform, labeling and classification, inclusion, teacher shortage, and special education funding can often be seen in the headlines of newspapers nationwide. Even though every story has two sides, more work is needed to ensure that every student's story will have a happy ending.

See also: Adapted Physical Education; Assistive Technology; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Council for Exceptional Children; Emotionally Disturbed, Education of; Hearing Impairment; Learning Disabilities, Education of Individuals with; Mental Retardation, Education of Individuals with; School Reform; Special Education, subentry on History of; Speech and Language Impairment, Education of Individuals with; Visual Impairments, Education of Individuals with.

bibliography

Bateman, Barbara D., and Linden, Mary A. 1998. Better IEPs: How to Develop Legally Correct and Educationally Useful Programs, 3rd edition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Crockett, Jean B., and Kauffman, James M. 1999. The Least Restrictive Environment: Its Origins and Interpretations in Special Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gersten, Russell; Schiller, Ellen P.; and Vaughn, Sharon, eds. 2000. Contemporary Special Education Research: Syntheses of the Knowledge Base on Critical Instructional Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hallahan, Daniel P., and Kauffman, James M. 2000. Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education, 8th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hallahan, Daniel P.; Kauffman, James M.; and Lloyd, John W. 1999. Introduction to Learning Disabilities, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hallahan, Daniel P., and Keogh, Barbara K., eds. 2001. Research and Global Perspectives in Learning Disabilities: Essays in Honor of William M. Cruickshank. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kauffman, James M. 2001. Characteristics of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and Youth, 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kauffman, James M., and Hallahan, Daniel P. 1993. "Toward a Comprehensive Delivery System for Special Education." In Integrating General and Special Education, ed. John I. Goodlad and Thomas C. Lovitt. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.

Kauffman, James M., and Hallahan, Daniel P., eds. 1995. The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Kauffman, James M.; Lloyd, John W.; Hallahan, Daniel P.; and Astuto, Terry A., eds. 1995. Issues in Educational Placement: Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lloyd, John W.; Hallahan, Daniel P.; Kauffman, James M.; and Keller, Clay E. 1998. "Academic Problems." In Practice of Child Therapy, 3rd edition, ed. Thomas R. Kratochwill and Richard J. Morris. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lloyd, John W.; Kameenui, Edward J.; and Chard, David, eds. 1997. Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mastropieri, Margo A., and Scruggs, Thomas E. 2000. The Inclusive Classroom: Strategies for Effective Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Yell, Mitchell L. 1998. The Law and Special Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ysseldyke, James E.; Algozzine, Bob; and Thurlow, Martha L. 2000. Critical Issues in Special Education, 3rd edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jennifer J. Jakubecy

Devery R. Mock

James M. Kauffman

PREPARATION OF TEACHERS

Special education is a complex enterprise. Students are classified by disability categories and placed in settings that range from classrooms and resource rooms to self-contained classes and separate schools. Special education teacher education also is complex. Teachers are prepared in specialized programs and often licensed to teach students with a particular disability. Licensure structures are complex and vary dramatically from state to state. Furthermore, how students with disabilities are served in schools has changed dramatically since the early 1980s, with implications for teachers' roles and teacher preparation.

Special Education Students and Teachers

According to the U.S. Department of Education (DoE), in 19981999 about 5.7 million school-aged children were provided special education in the United States. Schools employed about 360,000 special education teachers, 90 percent of whom were fully qualified. Teacher preparation is also a substantial enterprise. The approximately 800 special education programs in the United States awarded more than 22,000 bachelor's and master's degrees in 19961997. Although such productivity would seem sufficient to address demand, many master's recipients are practicing teachers, and many newly graduated teachers decline to enter the work force.

History of Special Education Teacher Education

The development of special education was bolstered in 1975 by the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was amended in 1997 by the IDEA. With the emergence and diversification of special education services in schools came demand for specially trained teachers and programs to prepare them. Although special education teacher education programs existed before the passage of the EAHCA, its passage spurred growth. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, 871 colleges and universities in the United States prepared teachers in at least one special education field.

In spite of its complexity and distinctive character, special education teacher education has evolved in the same way that general teacher education has evolved. Once guided by causal models that related precisely defined teacher actions to specific student outcomes, teacher educators' conceptions of teaching and learning have broadened to include teacher thinking and decision-making. This shift is most evident in the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards for beginning teachers, which use general education practice as the foundation for special education practice, and the realignment of the Council for Exceptional Children's professional standards with those provided by INTASC.

Issues in Special Education Teacher Education

Shortages also are related to licensure area, geographical location, and diversity of the work force. Perhaps more invidious than overall shortages or variability in licensure areas are shortages of teachers in urban and rural areasor, perhaps more precisely, in low-income schools in cities and rural areas. Also critical is the shortage of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) special education teachers, an issue that has plagued the general teacher work force as well. It is especially important in special education because of overrepresentation of CLD students, particularly African Americans, on special education rosters.

The chronic undersupply of teachers has spawned alternative special education training programs, many of which attempt to tap nontraditional pools of teacher candidates, such as retired military personnel and midlife career changers. Although many of these programs are quite rigorous in terms of the courses and field experiences required, not all are. Research on special education alternative programs has shown graduates of some programs to be capable teachers, often as competent and motivated as graduates of traditional programs. Moreover, their competence is associated with the length and intensity of their training. Longer and more rigorous programs have been shown to prepare better teachers than shortcut programs.

Conclusions

See also: Special Education, subentries on Current Trends, History of; Teacher Education.

bibliography

Blanton, Linda P.; Griffin, Cynthia C.; Winn, Judith A.; and Pugach, Marleen C., eds.1997. Teacher Education in Transition: Collaborative Programs to Prepare General and Special Education. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Brownell, Mary T.; Ross, Dorene R.; Colon,Elayne; and McCallum, Cynthia. 2001. "Teacher Education Practices in Special Education: How Do They Compare to Exemplary General Education Teacher Education Practices?" Gainesville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Hirsch, Eric; Koppich, Julia E.; and Knapp, Michael S. 2001. "Revisiting What States Are Doing to Improve the Quality of Teaching: An Update on Patterns and Trends." Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Ingersoll, Richard M. 1999. "Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages, and the Organization of Schools: A CTP Working Paper." Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Rosenberg, Michael S., and Sindelar, Paul T. 2001. "The Proliferation of Alternative Routes to Certification in Special Education: A Critical Review of the Literature." Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, National Clearing-house for Professions in Special Education.

Sindelar, Paul T.; Brownell, Mary T.; Correa, Vivian; McLeskey, James; Bishop, Anne; Smith, Deborah; Tyler, Naomi; and Waldron, Nancy. 2001. "The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice Teacher Preparation." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.

Strosnider, Roberta; Crutchfield, Margaret; and Paschall, Albert. 2000. "Dual, Blended, or Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs: Who, What, When, Where, and Why?" In Unified Teacher Preparation Programs for General and Special Educators, ed. Lee Sherry and Fred Spooner. St. Petersburg: Florida Comprehensive System of Personnel Development.

U.S. Department of Education. 2000. Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Paul T. Sindelar

Mary T. Brownell

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

A goal of the United Nations is to make education available for all the world's students, including those who are disabled and have special needs. Doing so, however, raises many questions:

What children need special education?

What is the nature of education for children with disabilities?

What philosophies form the basis for education for children with special needs and their families?

Access to education for students with special education needs is a global phenomenon. The underlying assumptions, educational strategies, and authorization of legislation governing special education differ across nations, and are inextricably linked to local context, societal values, and beliefs about pedagogy and disability.

Education Philosophies

Three major philosophies have governed how a nation identifies and educates children with special needs. Historically, the medical model is the most widespread and has been used in both diagnosis and educational treatment of children with disabilities. Children receive a medical diagnosis based on psychological and physical impairments across selected domains and both strengths and weakness are identified for education and training. Children with similar diagnoses and functional levels are grouped together for instructional purposes. Standardized testing is often used to provide a diagnostic name for a disability. According to Thomas Oakland and Sherman Hu, the accuracy of diagnoses is questionable as standardized tests are often not suitably normed, and reliability and validity estimates are often not available, making international comparisons difficult.

In the environmental model, disabilities are experienced as a function of the interaction between the person and the environment. Environments can be defined in terms of psychological and social environments as well as physical environments. Environmental impediments include architectural barriers, lack of assistive technology, and/or limited transportation. Instructional techniques and learning opportunities can be structured to compensate for environmental deficiencies to ensure that children learn and achieve skills of adaptive living. The role of the environment has been recognized in a World Health Organization classification scheme for individuals with disabilities.

The inclusion model incorporates aspects of the environmental model and views children as having a right to education with and alongside their nondisabled peers. Schools are organized to ensure that each student, disabled or nondisabled, receives age-appropriate, individualized attention, accommodations, and supports to provide access to the general education curriculum. Assistive technology often facilitates inclusive schooling practice for both teacher and student.

Classification

Attempts to make meaningful international comparisons among students and the instructional supports and programs for children with disabilities are exceedingly difficult, given the differing definitions and eligibility criteria. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports a range between 1 percent to 35 percent of the primary and lower secondary education population across twenty developed nations receiving special needs additional resources, including special teachers, assistive technology, classroom adaptations, and specialized teaching materials. Additional resources are typically provided to a higher proportion of males than females (averaging 63% to 37%, respectively).

The OECD also investigated how nations addressed the needs of students requiring support in the general-education curriculum and expanded their indicators designed to compare the proportions of students with disabilities, learning difficulties, and social and economic disadvantages. Three categories emerged. Category A refers to students who have diagnosed disabilities about which there is substantial international agreement (e.g., blind/partially sighted, deaf/hard of hearing, autism, cognitive disabilities, or multiple disabilities). Category B is an intermediary classification and refers to students who have difficulty learning and are not easily categorized in either Category A or C. Category C refers to students who have difficulty learning because of socioeconomic, cultural, and/or linguistic factors.

The OECD reported striking differences in educational placement for students with special education needs. Some nations serve virtually no disabled students in special segregated schools (e.g., Italy), while others serve more than two-thirds in segregated schools (e.g., Finland, France, Greece, and the Netherlands). Despite the increasing inclusion of students with disabilities (Category A) in the mainstream of general education, inclusion is an issue that continues to be debated.

Approaches

Cecil R. Reynolds and Elaine Fletcher-Janzen provide brief descriptions of existing special education approaches that are available for more than thirty nations or regions of the world. More detailed information, data and case studies are also available for nineteen developed nations in the OECD's 1995 report Integrating Students with Special Needs into Mainstream Schools. Another collection of comparative studies by Kas Mazurek and Margaret A. Winzer includes nations with limited special education ( South Africa, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip), emerging special education ( Nigeria, Iran, Brazil, Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, India, and Uruguay), segregated special education ( Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Czechoslovakia, and Hong Kong), approaching integration (Israel, Poland, Australia, and Canada), and integrated special education ( Scandinavia, New Zealand, the United States, and England and Wales).

An examination of special education philosophies and approaches reveals the following:

Special education often consists of national and local governmental involvement in funding and service provision that is supplemented by the work of nongovernmental service organizations. Oversight of these programs by governments varies widely.

The medical model is the predominant philosophy in developing countries and in many developed countries. Environmental and inclusive models are emerging and are in varying stages of planning and implementation, primarily in the western developed nations.

There are no coordinating international agencies monitoring global progress in special education, but the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) have developed teacher education materials in an effort to broaden the "Education for All" initiative to include children with disabilities.

International funding sources for education (e.g., World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, etc.), are proposing more inclusive approaches to special needs education.

All nations recognize a need for improved teacher education, particularly in teaching children with special needs in regular classrooms.

Nations with great needs for special education, usually the developing countries, are attempting to develop family or village-centered programs called community-based special education. These programs have been shown to be successful.

A movement toward school-university partnerships shows promise in grounding teacher preparation in the practice of schooling.

Educating children with special needs is a humanitarian effort that is both a science and an art in some nations and an act of charity in others. In every nation, education for all has social, economic, and moral benefits.

This article was written by two of the authors (Jaeger and Smith) in their private capacity. No official support or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

See also: International Development Agencies and Education; Special Education, subentries on Current Trends, History of, Preparation of Teachers.

bibliography

Lynch, James. 1994. Provision for Children with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region. World Bank Technical Paper Number 261, Asia Technical Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Mazurek, Kas, and Winzer, Margret A. 1994. Comparative Studies in Special Education. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1995. Integrating Students with Special Needs into Mainstream Schools. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2000. Education at a Glance; OECD Indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Reynolds, Cecil R., and Fletcher-Janzen,

Elaine. 2000. Encyclopedia of Special Education, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.

Unesco, Special Education, Division of Basic Education. 1994. "The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality." Salamanca, Spain, 710 June 1994. <www.unesco.org/education/educprog/sne/salamanc/index.htm>.

World Health Organization. 2001. "ICIDH-2: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health." Geneva. <www.who.int/icidh>.

Paul Ackerman

Robert Jaeger

Anne Smith

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
history ofdevery r. mockjennifer j. jakubecyjames m. kauffman current trendsjennifer j. jakubecydevery r. mockjames m. kauffman preparation of teacherspaul t. sindelarmary t. brownell international context paul ackermanrobert jaegeranne smith Special education, as its name suggests, is a specialized branch of education.

# data[].attributes.body
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Congress intended that all children with disabilities would “have a right to education, and to establish a process by which State and local educational agencies may be held accountable for providing educational services for all handicapped children.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertisement for the Asylum for the Education of the Deaf and Dumb,
The Connecticut Courant, September 8, 1829

Programs for children with specific learning disabilities (called "brain injury," "minimal brain dysfunction," and otherterms) became more common in the 1940's.

However, most early special education programs were private and/or residential. The quality and availability of programs varied between and within states. Good special education programs were rare and difficult to access. For most children with disabilities, special education programs were simply not available.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

In 1954, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a landmark civil rights decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

In Brown, school children from four states argued that segregated public schools were inherently unequal and deprived them of equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court found that African-American children had the right to equal educational opportunities and that segregated schools "have no place in the field of public education." The Court wrote:

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 public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today, it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. 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, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available to all on equal terms.

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Brown, the Supreme Court described the emotional impact that segregation has on children, especially when segregation "has the sanction of the law:"

To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court that nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.

After the decision in Brown, parents of children with disabilities began to bring lawsuits against their school districts for excluding and segregating children with disabilities. The parents argued that, by excluding these children, schools were discriminating against the children because of their disabilities.

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. This landmark legislation 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. According to the National Council on Disability:

Congress first addressed the education of students with disabilities in 1966 when it amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to establish a grant program to assist states in the "initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects . . . for the education of handicapped children." In 1970, that program was replaced by the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230) that, like its predecessor, established a grant program aimed at stimulating the States to develop educational programs and resources for individuals with disabilities. Neither program included any specific mandates on the use of the funds provided by the grants; nor could either program be shown to have significantly improved the education of children with disabilities.

PARC and Mills

During the early 1970s, two cases were catalysts for change: Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC) and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia.

PARC dealt with the exclusion of children with mental retardation from public schools. In the subsequent settlement, it was agreed that educational placement decisions must include a process of parental participation and a means to resolve disputes.

Mills involved the practice of suspending, expelling and excluding children with disabilities from the District of Columbia public schools. The school district's primary defense in Mills was the high cost of educating children with disabilities. Judge Waddy wrote:

The genesis of this case is found (1) in the failure of the District of Columbia to provide publicly supported education and training to plaintiffs and other "exceptional" children, members of their class, and (2) the excluding, suspending, expelling, reassigning and transferring of "exceptional" children from regular public school classes without affording them due process of law.

The inadequacies of the District of Columbia Public School System whether occasioned by insufficient funding or administrative inefficiency, certainly cannot be permitted to bear more heavily on the "exceptional" or handicapped child than on the normal child.

Congressional Investigation (1972)

After PARC and Mills, Congress launched an investigation into the status of children with disabilities and found that millions of children were not receiving an appropriate education:

Yet, the most recent statistics provided by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped estimated that of the more than 8 million children . . . with handicapping conditions requiring special education and related services, only 3.9 million such children are receiving an appropriate education. 1.75 million handicapped children are receiving no educational services at all, and 2.5 million handicapped children are receiving an inappropriate education.

The investigation so moved members of Congress that they wrote:

The long-range implications of these statistics are that public agencies and taxpayers will spend billions of dollars over the lifetimes of these individuals to maintain such persons as dependents and in a minimally acceptable lifestyle. With proper education services, many would be able to become productive citizens, contributing to society instead of being forced to remain burdens. Others, through such services, would increase their independence, thus reducing their dependence on society.

There is no pride in being forced to receive economic assistance. Not only does this have negative effects upon the handicapped person, but it has far-reaching effects for such person's family.

Providing educational services will ensure against persons needlessly being forced into institutional settings. One need only look at public residential institutions to find thousands of persons whose families are no longer able to care for them and who themselves have received no educational services. Billions of dollars are expended each year to maintain persons in these subhuman conditions . . .

Parents of handicapped children all too frequently are not able to advocate the rights of their children because they have been erroneously led to believe that their children will not be able to lead meaningful lives . . . . It should not . . . be necessary for parents throughout the country to continue utilizing the courts to assure themselves a remedy . . . .

In 1972, legislation was introduced in Congress after several "landmark court cases establishing in law the right to education for all handicapped children."

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

On November 19, 1975, Congress enacted Public Law 94-142 in 1975, also known as The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Congress intended that all children with disabilities would "have a right to education, and to establish a process by which State and local educational agencies may be held accountable for providing educational services for all handicapped children."

Initially, the law focused on ensuring that children with disabilities had access to an education and due process of law. Congress included an elaborate system of legal checks and balances called "procedural safeguards" that are designed to protect the rights of children and their parents. The law has been reauthorized several times, most recently in 2004.

Did Your State Pass the IDEA Compliance Test? (The Special Ed Advocate, October 11, 1999)

On October 11, 1999, we published an issue of The Special Ed Advocate that included several articles, including #3: "Did Your State Pass the IDEA Compliance Test?"

We explained that your state Department of Education has many responsibilities under IDEA.
"The state Department of Education is responsible for supervising local school districts.

"Your state education department should have a comprehensive system of personnel development that is designed to ensure that there is an adequate supply of properly trained teachers.

"Your state should have policies and procedures that ensure that all children with disabilities receive a free appropriate education.

"Your state is responsible for implementing a comprehensive Child Find Program where all children with disabilities (including children who attend private schools) are identified, located and evaluated."

We asked, "Did your state pass the IDEA Compliance Test?"

According to information previously released by the National Council on Disability, "Most states failed."

"Based on the U.S. Department of Education's monitoring of state compliance with IDEA from 1994 to 1998, 90 percent of states and territories fail to adequately supervise local education agenciesâ€™ education of students with disabilities."

"Eighty-eight percent do not comply with requirements to provide services to assist a student's transition from school to post-education activities."

On November 23, 1999, we reported that the IDEA Compliance Report Was Delayed
The parents, teachers and advocacy groups that have been eagerly awaiting the National Council on Disability's full report on state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will have to wait a couple more months. The report, which was first scheduled for release in mid-October, then pushed back to mid-November, is now expected to be available the last week of January or early February, NCD spokesman Mark Quigley said Thursday. The report details the ways in which all 50 states and the U.S. territories fail to meet the law's key requirements for providing free, appropriate public education for students with disabilities."

IDEA Compliance Report: Back to School on Civil Rights - "States Ignore Special Ed Law"

On January 25, 2000, the National Council on Disability (NCD) released the long awaited report of the federal data: enforcement and compliance with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Part B (IDEA), concluding that "Federal efforts to enforce the law over several administrations have been inconsistent, ineffective and lacking any real teeth . . ."

"Many children with disabilities are getting substandard schooling because states are not complying with federal rules on special education . . ."

"In too many cases, children with disabilities are taught in separate classrooms and schools are not following other regulations meant to protect these students from discrimination."

"Because the U. S. Department of Education doesnâ€™t require states to comply with the law, 'parents often must sue to enforce the law . . .'"

"Nearly 6 million American children receive special education instruction and services at a cost of almost $40 billion, about $5.7 billion of which is federal money."

After examining compliance reports from 1994 to 1998, the National Council on Disability concluded that:

1. "36 states failed to ensure that children with disabilities are not segregated from regular classrooms."

2. "44 states failed to follow rules requiring schools to help students find jobs or continue their education."

3. "45 states failed to ensure that local school authorities adhered to nondiscrimination laws."

The Council on Disability concluded that special education would not fulfill its mission until states are required to comply with the law.

The Associated Press reported that, "The Council made dozens of recommendations to strengthen federal enforcement. They include giving the Justice Department independent authority to investigate cases and take states to court; providing more money for enforcement and handling of complaints; and creating a process for handling complaints at the federal level."

We spent days formatting the IDEA Compliance Report into html, creating hundreds of internal links, and uploading the Report onto Wrightslaw.com.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004

Congress has amended and renamed the special education law several times since 1975. On December 3, 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was amended again. The reauthorized statute is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and is known as IDEA 2004. The statute is in Volume 20 of the United States Code (U. S. C.), beginning at Section 1400. The special education regulations are published in Volume 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) beginning at Section 300.

In reauthorizing the IDEA, Congress increased the focus on accountability and improved outcomes by emphasizing reading, early intervention, and research-based instruction by requiring that special education teachers be highly qualified.

Purposes

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 has two primary purposes. The first purpose is to provide an education that meets a child's unique needs and prepares the child for further education, employment, and independent living.

The second purpose is to protect the rights of both children with disabilities and their parents.

Finding: Overrepresentation of Minority Children

In 1975, Congress found that poor African-American children were over-represented in special education. These problems have persisted.

In the Findings of IDEA 2004, Congress described ongoing problems with the over-identification of minority children, including mislabeling and high dropout rates:

(A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities.

(B) More minority children continue to be served in special education than would be expected from the percentage of minority students in the general school population.

(C) African-American children are identified as having mental retardation and emotional disturbance at rates greater than their White counterparts.

(D) In the 1998-1999 school year, African-American children represented just 14.8 percent of the population aged 6 through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent of all children with disabilities.

(E) Studies have found that schools with predominately White students and teachers have placed disproportionately high numbers of their minority students into special education.

Aligning IDEA and NCLB
When Congress reauthorized the IDEA in 2004, they emphasized the need to align the IDEA with other school improvement efforts, specifically "improvement efforts under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965."

Congress found that:

. . . the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom . . . to meet developmental goals and . . . the challenging expectations that have been established for all children . . . .

The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was "to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments."
Special education teachers who taught core academic subjects had to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements in NCLB by demonstrating competence in the subjects they teach. These requirements for highly qualified special education teachers attempted to bring IDEA into conformity with the No Child Left Behind Act.
IDEA required states to establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities that are consistent with the goals and standards for nondisabled children. States were also required to improve graduation rates and dropout rates and to report the progress of children with disabilities on state and district assessments.

In Findings of IDEA 2004, Congress described a critical need for adequately trained personnel and that "high quality, comprehensive professional development programs were essential to ensure that the persons responsible for the education or transition of children with disabilities possess the knowledge and skills necessary to address the educational and related needs of those children." In June 2020, the U.S. Department of Education reported that, as usual,
No Child Left Behind Out, Every Student Succeeds Act In

In 2015, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the statute formerly known as the No Child Left Behind Act. In response to complaints from states and school districts, Congress removed many portions of the law about accountability -- including requirements for highly qualified teachers. The new education statute, Every Student Succeeds Act, was signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015.
fewer than half of the states were in compliance with federal special education law for the previous academic year. (USA Today, August 8, 2020)

Most states fail education obligations to special needs students:
So, what else is new? USA Today (August 8, 2020)

Report on State Implementation of IDEA (Revised November 25, 2020. https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/ideafactsheet-determinations-2020.pdf

**********

Legal references and citations for this article can be found in Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, Chapter 3.

To top

Last revised: 01/03/21

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The History of Special Education Law in the United States by Peter W.D. Wright, Esq. - Wrightslaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pete Wright describes how public education and special education evolved, the impact of landmark cases about racial and disability discrimination, the circumstances that led Congress to enact Public Law 94-142 in 1975, and how the law has evolved over the past forty years.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was about a teacher noticing that there was a need for special education teachers and not only that but a shortage of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I got a Special Education job and taught for about 10 year. There were a lot of ups and downs over those 10 years, and eventually I decided that I wanted a change so I got certified and switched over to high school history. At this point in my career I remembered what my friend had said a decade ago and wondered if I was ahead of the curve on schools no longer needing special education teachers, even though it was 10 years later. I wondered if my job was now safe in my new-found home in the history department.

Well, I loved teaching history, but life has its own funny ways that aren't aligned to us and what we want, so after a decade of teaching history I personally got a first class education on budget cuts and my job was eliminated. Thankfully, I landed on my feet back in Special Education, believe it or not.

It had been more than two decades since my old graduate school buddy told me that the need for special education teachers was disappearing. During the previous two decades my friend had gone from graduate school to elementary school teacher to assistant principal to principal, just like his father had done. I had gone from graduate school to special education teacher to history teacher to back to special education teacher, like nobody else that I know had done. And believe it or not there was still a bunch of special education jobs available when I landed there for a second time. As a matter of fact, there was actually plenty of jobs there because there is a shortage of special education teachers in 49 out of our 50 states. Imagine that... Two decades after I was told that Special Education was going away, and I find that they still can't seem to get enough special education teachers.

Fast-forward a few more years to today and there is a new and interesting twist affecting Special Education called full inclusion. Now inclusion isn't a new thing to our schools. As a matter of fact inclusion has a long interesting history in our schools.

Six decades ago there was the Supreme Court Case of Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954 the new law of the land became integrated schools for all races. Four decades ago the ground-breaking law of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) began to take effect and help ensure that more than six million students with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate education, which means they too get to be included in with the general education population.

To help this happen schools create a Planning and Placement Team (PPT) that meet and discuss a student's Individual Education Program (IEP) and then place the student in the appropriate educational setting based on the student's needs and the law. The placement also needs to be the least restrictive environment (LRE). I can still remember my college professor describing the least restrictive environment in a short story that one would not bring a machine gun to take care of a fly. Rather, one would just bring a fly-swatter to take care of a fly. In other words, if a kid's disability can be dealt with in the neighborhood school, then the kid doesn't have to be sent across town or even to another town's special school.

Today, many schools are trying to improve on this inclusion model and least restrictive environment by going from a partial to a full-inclusion model. Schools in the Los Angeles School District have moved a vast majority of their students out of their special education centers within the last three years and into neighborhood schools where they are fully integrated into elective classes like physical education, gardening and cooking. They are also integrated into regular main stream academic classes as well, but it's usually not to the same degree as electives.

Michigan schools say that want to break down the walls between general education and Special Education creating a system in which students will get more help when they need it, and that support doesn't need to be in a separate special education classroom.

Some school districts in Portland, Oregon are a little further along than the Los Angeles schools that are just bringing special education students back from special schools and Michigan schools that are just beginning to try full integration of its students and eliminating most of the special education classrooms.

Being a little further along in the process Portland makes an interesting case study. Many of the parents who initially supported the idea of integrating special education students into regular education classrooms in Portland are now worried about how the Portland Public School System is doing it. Portland is aiming for full-inclusion by the year 2020. However, some of the teachers in Portland are saying, "Obviously the special education students are going to fail and they are going to act out because we are not meeting their needs... If there's not the right support there, that's not acceptable, not only for the child, but for the general education teacher as well."

A Portland parent said, "I would rather have my child feel successful than for them to be 'college-ready'." She further states, "I want my children to be good, well-rounded human beings that make the world a better place. I don't think they necessarily need to go to college to do that. I think that children are individuals, and when we stop treating them as individuals, there's a problem." Sadly, many parents and teachers have left the Portland School District, and many more are fantasizing about it because they feel the full-inclusion model isn't working there how they pictured it would.

How much should schools integrate the special education students is the burning question of the hour. In my personal experience some integration is not only possible, but it's a must. With some support many of the special education students can be in the regular education classrooms.

A few years ago I even had a non-speaking paraplegic boy in a wheel chair who was on a breathing respirator sitting in my regular education social studies class. Every day his para professional and his nurse rolled him into and sat with him. He always smiled at the tales I told of Alexander the Great marching across 11,000 miles of territory and conquering much of the known world at that time. By the way, Alexander the Great also practiced his own model of inclusion by encouraging kindness to the conquered and encouraging his soldiers to marry the captured territory's women in order to create a lasting peace.

Other important factors to consider in special education inclusion is the much needed socialization and the saving of money integration offers. Kids learn from other kids and money not spent on Special Education could be spent on general education, right? Hmm...

If you noticed, I said a little bit earlier that many special education students could be integrated, but I did not say all or even most should be integrated. There are just some students that are going to take away too much of the teacher's time and attention from other students, such as, in the case of students with severe behavior problems. When we put severe behavior problems in regular education classes it's just outright unfair to all of the other children in there. Similar cases could be made for other severe disabilities too that demand too much of the main stream teacher's individual time and attention.

Hey, I'm not saying to never try out a kid with a severe disability in a general education setting. But what I am saying is that schools need to have a better system of monitoring these placements and be able to quickly remove students that aren't working out, and are taking precious learning time away from other students. Furthermore, schools need to do this without shaming the teacher because the teacher complained that the student wasn't a good fit and was disrupting the educational learning process of the other students. Leaving a kid in an inappropriate placement isn't good for any of the parties involved. Period.

Over the last two decades I have worked with more special education students than I can remember as a special education teacher and a regular education teacher teaching inclusion classes. I have learned to become extremely flexible and patient and thus have had some of the toughest and most needy kids placed in my classes. I have worked miracles with these kids over the years and I know that I am not the only teacher out there doing this. There are many more out there just like me. But, what I worry about is that because teachers are so dedicated and pulling off daily miracles in the classroom, districts, community leaders, and politician may be pushing too hard for the full-inclusion model thinking that the teachers will just have to figure it out. Setting up teachers and students for failure is never a good idea.

Furthermore, I hope it's just not the money that they are trying to save while pushing this full-inclusion model forward because what we should really be trying to save is our children. As Fredrick Douglas said, "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." Regardless of how the financial educational pie is sliced, the bottom line is that the pie is just too small and our special education teachers and our special education students shouldn't be made to pay for this.

In addition, I have been a teacher for too long to not be at least a little skeptical when I hear the bosses say that the reason they are pushing for the full-inclusion model is because socialization is so important. I know it's important. But, I also know that too many people are hanging their hats on that socialization excuse rather than education our special needs students and providing them what they really need. I have seen special education students whose abilities only let them draw pictures sitting in honors classes. There is no real socialization taking place here. It just doesn't make sense.

Well, finally coming full circle. It will be interesting to see where this full inclusion thing goes. The wise ones won't let their special education teachers go, or get rid of their classrooms. And for the school districts that do, I imagine that it won't take long before they realize the mistake they made and start hiring special education teachers back. To my friend and his now ex-principal father from all those years ago who thought special education was going away, well, we're not there yet, and to tell you the truth, I don't think we ever will be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Look at the Past, Present, and Future of Special Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I got a Special Education job and taught for about 10 year. There were a lot of ups and downs over those 10 years, and eventually I decided that I wanted a change so I got certified and switched over to high school history.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes over the new laws set for kids with special needs and teaches the parents as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At a glance

IDEA is the nation's special education law.

Schools must find and evaluate students thought to have disabilities - at no cost to families.

To qualify for IDEA services, a child must have a disability and need special education to make progress in school.

To get special education services for a child, you have to follow a legal process. The most important law for this process is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

IDEA is the nation's special education law. It gives rights and protections to kids with disabilities. It covers them from birth through high school graduation or age 21 (whichever comes first). Parents and legal guardians also have rights under the law.

IDEA places two big responsibilities on states and their public schools.

Schools must find and evaluate students who may have disabilities, at no cost to families. This is known as Child Find. If a child has a qualifying disability, schools must offer special education and related services (like speech therapy and counseling) to meet the child's unique needs. These are provided through an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The goal is to help students make progress in school.

Second, schools have to give parents a voice in their child's education. At every point in the process, IDEA gives parents specific rights and protections. These are called procedural safeguards. For example, one safeguard is that a school must get consent from parents before providing services to kids.

The reach of IDEA goes beyond traditional public schools. It includes public magnet and charter schools. The law also provides early intervention services to infants and toddlers up to age 3. Finally, IDEA may impact some students in private schools.

About the author

About the author

Andrew M.I. Lee, JD is an editor and attorney who strives to help people understand complex legal, education, and parenting issues.

Reviewed by

Reviewed by

Myrna Mandlawitz, MEd, JD has worked for over 20 years as a consultant/lobbyist on special and general education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)? IDEA is a federal law that lays out children's rights in special education. Here's how it works.

# data[].attributes.body
Educating kids and teachers about students’ special health needs and the dangers associated with certain actions and exposures can help keep kids safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children with disabilities-such as physical, developmental, intellectual, emotional, and sensory disabilities-are at an increased risk of being bullied. Any number of factors- physical vulnerability, social skill challenges, or intolerant environments-may increase the risk. Research suggests that some children with disabilities may bully others as well.

Kids with special health needs, such as epilepsy or food allergies, also may be at higher risk of being bullied. Bullying can include making fun of kids because of their allergies or exposing them to the things they are allergic to. In these cases, bullying is not just serious, it can mean life or death.

Creating a Safe Environment for Youth with Disabilities

Special considerations are needed when addressing bullying in youth with disabilities. There are resources to help kids with disabilities who are bullied or who bully others. Youth with disabilities often have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or Section 504 plans that can be useful in crafting specialized approaches for preventing and responding to bullying. These plans can provide additional services that may be necessary. Additionally, civil rights laws protect students with disabilities against harassment.

Creating a Safe Environment for Youth with Special Health Needs

Youth with special health needs-such as diabetes requiring insulin regulation, food allergies, or youth with epilepsy- may require accommodations at school. In these cases they do not require an Individualized Education Program or Section 504 plan. However, schools can protect students with special health needs from bullying and related dangers. If a child with special health needs has a medical reaction, teachers should address the medical situation first before responding to the bullying. Educating kids and teachers about students' special health needs and the dangers associated with certain actions and exposures can help keep kids safe.

Federal Civil Rights Laws and Youth with Disabilities

When bullying is directed at a child because of his or her established disability and it creates a hostile environment at school, bullying behavior may cross the line and become "disability harassment." Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the school must address the harassment. Read more about federal civil rights laws.

Bullying Prevention for Children with Special Health Care Needs

Having special health care needs due to neurological, developmental, physical, and mental health conditions can add to the challenges children and young people face as they learn to navigate social situations in school and in life. While bullying and cyberbullying is an unfortunate reality for many young people, children with special healthcare needs are at greater risk for being targeted by their peers.

One reason children and young adults with special health care needs might be at higher risk for bullying is lack of peer support. Having friends who are respected by peers can prevent and protect against bullying. Ninety-five percent of 6- to 21-year-old students with disabilities were served in public schools in 2017. However, children with special health care needs may have difficulty getting around the school, trouble communicating and navigating social interactions, or may show signs of vulnerability and emotional distress. These challenges can make them be perceived as different, and increase their risk of aggression from peers.

Young people with special needs may benefit from, both individualized and class-wide approaches to address the specific effects of their condition and prevent them from becoming the target or perpetrator of bullying. Teachers, school staff, and other students need to understand the specific impairments of a child's health condition, so that they can develop strategies and supports to help them participate and succeed in class and with their peers.

Potential Perceived Differences

Children and youth with special needs are impacted by their conditions in a variety of ways. Every child is unique, and so are the ways that their health condition affects them. Some impairments, such as brain injuries or neurological conditions, can impact a child's understanding of social interactions and they may not even know when they are being bullied. Here are a few ways that disabilities may affect children:

Children and youth with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, or other neurological or physical conditions can struggle with physical coordination and speech.

Brain injuries can impair speech, movement, comprehension, and cognitive abilities or any combination of these. A child or youth with a brain injury may have trouble with body movements, or speaking in a way that others can understand. It could take them longer to understand what is being said or to respond.

Children and young people with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Tourette's Syndrome may have difficulties with social interactions, sensitivities, impulsivity, and self-regulating their behavior or effectively communicating.

A child or young person who experiences anxiety or depression or who has a mental health condition may be withdrawn, quiet, fearful, anxious, or vulnerable. They may exhibit intense social awkwardness or have difficulty speaking.

Children who have epilepsy or behavioral disorders may exhibit erratic or unusual behavior that makes them stand out among their peers.

Supporting Special Needs and Preventing Bullying at School

Strategies to address student's special needs at school can also help to prevent bullying and have positive outcomes for all students, especially tactics that use a team approach, foster peer relationships, and help students develop empathy. Some strategies include:

Engaging students in developing high-interest activities in which everyone has a role to play in designing, executing or participating in the activity.

Providing general up-front information to peers about the kinds of support children with special needs require, and have adults facilitate peer support.

Creating a buddy system for children with special needs.

Involving students in adaptive strategies in the classroom so that they participate in assisting and understanding the needs of others.

Conducting team-based learning activities and rotate student groupings.

Implementing social-emotional learning activities.

Rewarding positive, helpful, inclusive behavior.

Peer Support Makes a Difference

Here are a few examples of innovative strategies used by schools to promote peer-to-peer learning, foster relationships, and prevent bullying:

One high school created a weekly lunch program where student's with and without special healthcare needs sat and ate lunch together. Several senior students led the group, and invited their friends to join. All kinds of students participated. The students got to know each other through question and answer periods and discussions over lunch. They discovered things they had in common and formed friendships. A group of them went to the prom together.

Youth at one school held a wheelchair soccer night. Students with special healthcare needs that used wheelchairs coached their peers in how to use and navigate the wheelchairs to play. The students helped another peer who used a wheelchair who was interested in photography by mounting a digital camera on her chair so she could be the game photographer.

Another school created a club rule that required clubs to rotate leadership responsibilities in club meetings so that every member had a chance to run the group. This allowed students with special health care needs to take on leadership roles.

Peer support is an important protective factor against bullying. By working together, teachers, parents and students can develop peer education, team-building, and leadership activities that foster friendships, build empathy, and prevent bullying to make schools safer and inclusive for all students, including children with special healthcare needs.

Additional Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bullying and Youth with Disabilities and Special Health Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids with disabilities or with special health needs may be at higher risk of being bullied. Find strategies to help at StopBullying.gov.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about a  school program—designed to help students who struggled during remote learning—is a test run for a potential large-scale return to class in the fall,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many students with disabilities, access to education begins with transportation.

Plans for getting these students to and from school are spelled out in their Individualized Education Programs, the legal documents that govern schooling for students who are eligible for special education.

During the global pandemic brought on by the novel coronavirus, those travel plans could present a roadblock that hampers the ability of millions of children to return to in-person instruction.

Whether it is a special bus equipped with a wheelchair lift or aides assigned to help medically fragile children or those with severe intellectual disabilities on traditional buses, the requirements can be costly and tough to navigate even during normal times.

If districts continue to choose remote learning, schools can keep using their bus fleets to deliver food and learning materials. If in-person classes resume, the route for a return to schools becomes more complicated.

In Albert Lea, a district in southern Minnesota, a small group of students with disabilities, roughly 20, are already back on buses and in class. To keep the coronavirus at bay and students at least six feet apart, the district is testing out staggered bus arrival times, and assigned seating and temperature checks for students.

This summer school program-designed to help students who struggled during remote learning-is a test run for a potential large-scale return to class in the fall. So far, things have gone off without a hitch. But it is an experiment with a small sample size that some parents opted out of because of concerns about putting vulnerable children at risk. When schools reopen, hundreds more students with disabilities will be eligible for transportation services, based on current counts.

With school systems across the country plotting out a return to school, some want to prioritize the needs of special education students-and get them back in class to make up for lost time with teachers, therapists, and support staff during the school closures that swept the nation. Nationwide, more than 7.1 million students-about 14 percent of K-12 students-receive special education services.

To pave the way for students' return, state and district-level guidance on busing students has emphasized physical distancing and the need for masks and other personal protective equipment to keep students, bus drivers, and aides safe in small, enclosed spaces with many common contact surfaces that could facilitate the spread of coronavirus.

In northern Colorado, the Poudre schools will cut busing for most students in order to ensure that students with disabilities and homeless students-two groups guaranteed transportation under federal law-have access to it. Under the state's current school transportation guidance, only five students would be able to ride on a 47-passenger special education bus. Standard district buses, which some students with disabilities use, would only have 10 of the 77 seats available, per the guidance.

Another dilemma districts face is that, while many students will have trouble adjusting to wearing masks and maintaining physical distancing, some students cannot or will not adhere to the guidelines: medically fragile students or those in wheelchairs who need help to board buses; students on the autism spectrum or those with intellectual disabilities who do not understand the need to wear masks; and children with an emotional disturbance who might refuse to observe the requirements.

No matter the circumstances, schools should not expect to get a pass on busing students, transportation and legal experts say.

A Maryland Department of Education guide on transportation for students with disabilities delivers advice on what schools must do to avoid violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The guide lays out transportation requirements and warns that district transportation departments should not make decisions without approval from a student's IEP team, including teachers, therapists, paraprofessionals, and counselors or psychologists.

The guide suggests that districts survey parents to determine if students currently wear masks and are willing to keep them on. It also recommends that districts consider offering travel training-instructions that can help children with disabilities develop an awareness of their environment and safely use buses and other forms of transportation in ways that prevent the spread of coronavirus.

In New York City, nearly 75 percent of school bus breakdowns and delays involved special education buses, according to a newspaper analysis.

Roughly 40,000 children in the district are eligible for year-round special education services. Students will not return to class this summer, but the district will open sites across the city to resume one-on-one speech, physical, and occupational therapy services for students with disabilities. But it will not be busing students. Instead, the district will offer public transportation passes or travel reimbursement costs for families to get students to appointments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting Students With Disabilities Back to Class

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many students with disabilities, access to education begins with transportation. Plans for getting these students to and from school are spelled out in their Individualized Education Programs, the legal documents that govern schooling for students who are eligible for special education.