Legislative Intent and Progress

1978 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 234-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasper Harvey

Central to the provision of a free appropriate public education for all handicapped children in this country is the successful implementation of an individualized education plan for each child. This article addresses some of the concerns and some of the progress being made in implementing the statutory requirements of Public Law 94–142.

1989 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell L. Yell

Public Law 94–142 provides for a free appropriate public education for all handicapped children, but does not address the issue of disciplining handicapped students. The result has been confusion and uncertainty, particularly concerning expulsion and suspension. The courts have been forced into this vacuum, acting as arbiters. The Supreme Court's ruling in Honig v. Doe will help to delineate the proper role of educators in the suspension and expulsion of handicapped students. This article examines that role and offers recommendations for school policies regarding the discipline of handicapped students.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-137
Author(s):  
Francine H. Jacobs ◽  
Deborah Klein Walker

In November 1975, Congress passed The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (public law 94-142) which became effective on October 1, 1977. This law requires that any state receiving funds through PL 94-142 provide a "free appropriate public education" for each resident handicapped child, and protect the procedural rights of parents and children in the receipt of these special education services. State and local educational agencies (school systems) must develop and implement plans to identify, locate, and evaluate these children, and place them into suitable programs, all toward the goal of "full educational opportunity" for each (sections 612 and 613).1


1979 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Zettel ◽  
Joseph Ballard

In November of 1975 the Congress of the United States passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) and thereby mandated that all school-aged handicapped children in the United States were to have available to them a “free, appropriate public education” by September 1, 1978. To accomplish this the Congress also prescribed a set of minimum standards that were to be followed by state and local education agencies to insure that such an education was indeed being provided. The purpose of this particular article is twofold. First, it will provide an account of the basic tenets of the law, its origins, and its legislative history. Second, it will describe a number of the minimum standards established by this act that directly relate to and impact upon the education of handicapped children.


1986 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Lehr ◽  
Paul Haubrich

Since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 many legal precedents have been established that serve to define the parameters of programs for students. These parameters, as well as emerging and as yet unresolved issues as they relate to students with severe handicaps, are discussed. The authors focus their discussions around an example of a student with severe handicaps and present the effects of the precedents on this child's free appropriate public education, including extended school year, related services, appropriate curriculum, and appropriate placement.


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Michael Rozalski ◽  
Mitchell L. Yell ◽  
Jacob Warner

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.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 80 (5) ◽  
pp. 750-751
Author(s):  

According to the US Department of Education, 4.36 million children in the United States (more than 11% of children 3 to 21 years of age) received some special education services during the 1984/1985 school year.1 Therefore, it is likely that a sizeable percentage of children seen in a pediatric practice for initial evaluation and follow-up care will have a developmental disability that requires an individual education plan. Pediatricians must understand the importance of such a plan and be aware of their role in its development, implementation, and interpretation. BACKGROUND Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, was intended as an educational bill of rights for handicapped children, guaranteeing them a free and appropriate education. The law required identification, diagnosis, education, and related services for children 5 to 18 years of age. In 1977, the age range was extended to include children between 3 and 21 years, with services for children between the ages of 3 and 5 years remaining optional. Not only were these services to be provided, but states were encouraged to seek out handicapped children who had not been previously served. Public Law 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, further extends the range of the law by mandating services for children 3 to 5 years of age. This new law also provides funding for states to voluntarily develop programs that serve infants and toddlers (birth to 3 years of age) who are at risk for or are suspected of having handicapping conditions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105345122110326
Author(s):  
Perry A. Zirkel

This article delineates the four successive dimensions of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) central obligation of “free appropriation public education” that the courts have developed thus far: (a) procedural, (b) substantive, (c) incomplete implementation of the last individualized education program (IEP), and (d) incomplete implementation of the next IEP. This current snapshot cites illustrative cases and, to the extent available, empirical analyses. The final recommendation warns against lowering practice and policies to the minimum legal standards for each of these four “faces,” instead using them as organizing counter-markers for a proactive professional orientation.


1984 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-27
Author(s):  
Francis (Skip) Fennell

Federal legislation known as Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed in November 1975. This legislation determines regulations and requires actions by school districts and teachers relative to exceptional children. Many have interpreted state legislat ion and PL 94-142 as legislative remedies for some of the schools' past failures to provide an appropriate education for handicapped students. The law's programmatic and budgetary requirements became enforceable in October 1977. Public Law 94-142 mandates that free public education for handicapped students between the age of three and twenty-one begin no later than September 1980. Some exceptions to the mandate do occur, but the implication is that public schools may no longer refuse to admit handicapped students into educational programs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document