Integration: What Do We Mean?

1987 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14
Author(s):  
David Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Seminal Paper ◽  
Education Act

It is now 18 years since Lloyd Dunn (1968) wrote his seminal paper “Special Education for the Mildly Retarded: Is much of it justified?” In the meantime, there has been major legislation in USA in the form of Public Law 94-142 (1975) which has been widely interpreted as a blueprint for improved services for the handicapped and for their integration into ordinary schools. In Britain, Section 10 of the Education Act (1976), the Warnock Report (1978) and the Education Act (1981) have provided, in varying degrees, official encouragement for integration.

Provision of Related Services for Children With Chronic Disabilities

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 879-881
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Children With Disabilities ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Speech Pathology ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Provision Of Services ◽  
Education Act

Since 1975 all children with disabilities specifically delineated by law have had available to them "a free, appropriate public education that includes special education and related services to meet their unique needs." This access has been made possible by the passage of Public Law 94-142,1 The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This law was amended in October 1990 with passage of Public Law 101-476, The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Part B of Public Law 101-476 primarily details the identification and provision of services for children with disabilities. Unfortunately, the implementation of Part B of this law has been limited for many children by a number of significant and complex issues. The term "related services" as currently defined in Part B of the IDEA includes the following: ... transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation and social work services, and medical and counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. Health care providers frequently view the related services listed above as medically necessary and/or helpful for children with disabilities without the proviso that these services must be necessary for special education. This difference in perspective and interpretation by pediatricians and parents often leads to misunderstandings, frustrations, conflicts, and problems in the development and implementation of related services within school programs for children with disabilities.

Regional Comprehensive System of Personnel Development Council Activity in Big Sky Country

1998 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Susan E. Fishbaugh ◽  
Linda Christensen ◽  
Harvey Rude ◽  
Susan Bailey-Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Comprehensive System ◽  
Personnel Development ◽  
State Council ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Public Instruction

The Montana Office of Public Instruction, Special Education Division, initiated its state Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Council 15 years ago in compliance with Public Law 94–142, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act. The state council has remained active and has become stronger from its beginning to the present time. Because of the large geography of the state and diversity of needs across the state, however, the state council was somewhat limited and fragmented in meeting personnel development needs. Consequently, the state council implemented a CSPD regionalization concept based on the five existing Developmental Disabilities Planning and Advisory Council (DDPAC) and Montana Council of Administrators of Special Education (MCASE) regions. The purpose of this article is to report on strategies and activities of regional CSPD actions in Montana. The regional model holds promise for replication as a framework of personnel development in other large rural states. This information is represented within the context of the recently enacted amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act through the provisions of Public Law 105–17.

Unpacking the Logic of Compliance in Special Education: Contextual Influences on Discipline Racial Disparities in Suburban Schools

2021 ◽  
pp. 003804072110133
Author(s):  
Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides ◽  
Alexandra Aylward ◽  
Adai Tefera ◽  
Alfredo J. Artiles ◽  
Sarah L. Alvarado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Problem Behaviors ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
School Level ◽  
Social Force ◽  
Idea 2004 ◽  
Race And Racialization ◽  
Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ([IDEA] 2004; IDEA Amendments 1997) is a civil rights–based law designed to protect the rights of students with disabilities in U.S. schools. However, decades after the initial passage of IDEA, racial inequity in special education classifications, placements, and suspensions are evident. In this article, we focus on understanding how racial discipline disparities in special education outcomes relate to IDEA remedies designed to address problem behaviors. We qualitatively examine how educators interpret and respond to citations for racial discipline disproportionality via IDEA at both the district and the school level in a suburban locale. We find that educators interpret the inequity in ways that neutralize the racialized implications of the citation, which in turn affects how they respond to the citation. These interpretations contribute to symbolic and race-evasive IDEA compliance responses. The resulting bureaucratic and organizational structures associated with IDEA implementation become a mechanism through which the visibility of race and racialization processes are erased and muted through acts of policy compliance. Thus, the logic of compliance surrounding IDEA administration serves as a reproductive social force that sustains practices that do not disrupt locally occurring racialized inequities.

scholarly journals Free Appropriate Public Education, the U.S. Supreme Court, and Developing and Implementing Individualized Education Programs

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Education Program ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Free Appropriate Public Education ◽  
Substantive Content ◽  
State Education ◽  
Education Agency ◽  
Education Act

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990) established the essential obligation of special education law, which is to develop a student’s individualized special education program that enables them to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE was defined in the federal law as special education and related services that: (a) are provided at public expense, (b) meet the standards of the state education agency, (c) include preschool, elementary, or secondary education, and (d) are provided in conformity with a student’s individualized education program (IEP). Thus, the IEP is the blueprint of an individual student’s FAPE. The importance of FAPE has been shown in the number of disputes that have arisen over the issue. In fact 85% to 90% of all special education litigation involves disagreements over the FAPE that students receive. FAPE issues boil down to the process and content of a student’s IEP. In this article, we differentiate procedural (process) and substantive (content) violations and provide specific guidance on how to avoid both process and content errors when drafting and implementing students’ IEPs.

Legal Issues in Early Childhood Special Education

2021 ◽  
pp. 104420732110231
Author(s):  
Susan Larson Etscheidt ◽  
Stephanie L. Schmitz ◽  
Andi M. Edmister
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Transition Planning ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Early Childhood Special Education ◽  
Educational Planning ◽  
Professional Collaboration ◽  
Education Act

Family and professional collaboration is beneficial to students, families, and educators. The importance of such collaboration was recognized for families of students with disabilities, resulting in provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which ensure parental participation in educational planning. Despite the benefits of family and professional collaboration and IDEA mandate, many parents disagree with the educational planning decisions provided to their children and request due process hearings. Parents perceive a lack of opportunity to provide input and/or to disagree with schools’ perspectives. Parents of early childhood students report significant concerns about their child’s readiness for the transition to kindergarten and their limited role in transition planning as their children prepared to enter preschool programs. The purpose of this article was to examine the issues identified in parental complaints in early childhood special education (ECSE) through a qualitative content analysis of recent court cases. The results revealed six themes related to current issues in ECSE programs. We conclude with several recommendations for state policy makers to improve services in ECSE based on the DEC Recommended Practices.

Explaining the Decline in Special Education Teacher Employment From 2005 to 2012

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Dewey ◽  
Paul T. Sindelar ◽  
Elizabeth Bettini ◽  
Erling E. Boe ◽  
Michael S. Rosenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
General Education ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Public Law ◽  
General Educators ◽  
Special Education Teacher ◽  
Teacher Preparation Programs ◽  
Preparation Programs ◽  
Disability Prevalence ◽  
Constituent Elements

Demand for special education teachers grew continuously from the passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 through 2005, when this trend reversed. From 2005 to 2012, the number of special education teachers employed by U.S. schools declined by >17%. The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine factors that contributed to this decline. We parsed change in number of special education teachers employed into four constituent elements and found that these recent reductions were fueled by decreases in disability prevalence and the relative ratio of teachers to students in special versus general education, which favored the latter. These changes have important implications for teacher preparation programs’ efforts to adequately prepare special and general educators and for policies designed to improve teacher quality.

A Response to the GAO Report, “Disparities Still Exist in Who Gets Special Education”

1983 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Charlie Lakin ◽  
Bradley K. Hill ◽  
Florence A. Hauber ◽  
Robert H. Bruininks
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Mentally Retarded ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Residential Facilities ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
School Programs ◽  
Severely Handicapped ◽  
Nationally Representative

A September, 1981, General Accounting Office (GAO) report concluded that among the central objectives of Public Law 94–142, the priorities of serving the previously unserved and the most severely handicapped “may have been realized.” However, data gathered on 401 school-age children who were part of a nationally representative sample of 2,271 individuals living in residential facilities for mentally retarded persons found that at the same time the GAO study was conducted, substantial numbers of sample members were not in school programs and 8% were in no day programs whatsoever.

Letter to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 957-959
Author(s):  
Judith S. Gravel ◽  
Allan O. Diefendorf ◽  
Noel D. Matkin
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Clinical Experiences ◽  
Disabilities Education Act ◽  
Neonatal Hearing Screening ◽  
Health Initiatives ◽  
Education Act ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss ◽  
Critical Components

Neonatal hearing screening has come to the forefront of interest within our professional communities and among the general public, particularly over the last year. Identifying children with hearing loss at the earliest age possible, however, has been a longstanding tenet of audiologists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, and early childhood specialists, based both on knowledge of developmental processes and abundant clinical experiences. Indeed, the identification of conditions present in early childhood that can result in long-term disabilities are critical components of current legislative (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], Part H Public Law 102-119 [formerly 99-457])1 and public health initiatives (Healthy People 2000).2

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document