The Progress of Special Education in the US

The precedent for most special education related litigation was established by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954). The decision in this landmark civil rights case determined that segregating students in schools based on race, even if other educational variables appear to be equal, is unconstitutional. The refutation of “separate but equal” served as the underlying argument in court action by families of students with disabilities that were fighting for suitable public school education (Salend, 2008). Students with disabilities were separated from their peers without disabilities. They were sent to schools which were indeed separate. Two very important decisions for the education of students with disabilities brought changes: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972).
As the institutionalization of students with disabilities declined, the number of special education schools and special classes within the public schools for students with disabilities increased. Although this was a vast improvement, advocates for students with disabilities still questioned the segregation of these students within the public school. In 1968, Lloyd Dunn argued that special education classes for students with mild disabilities were unjustifiable because they served as a form of homogeneous grouping and tracking. He cited studies showing that students with mild disabilities “made as much or more progress in the regular grades as they do in special classes”, as well as studies showing that labeling reduces the student’s self-concept and the teacher’s expectations for success in school (Dunn, as cited in Salend, 2008, p.18).
There are several statues that address the education of people with disabilities. Three very important ones are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Johnson et al., 2008). “Three important themes addressed in Section 504 are equal treatment, appropriate education, and handicapped persons”. The Public Law 94-142 that was passed by Congress in 1975 has been amended several times. This law assures a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one (Johnson, et al., 2008, pp.198-199). Each child with a disability should also have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) formulated by general and special education teachers, and subject to the parents’ approval. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1992) developed stricter specifications for the delivery of educational services to students with disability (Johnson, et al., 2008).
According to National Council on Disability Chairperson John R. Vaughn, “Thanks to NCLB, with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the IDEA, educators across the United States are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students” (Positive Impact of IDEA and NCLB). As we try to close the achievement gap and immerse students with disabilities into general education classrooms we have pay close attention to the different disabilities.While the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has made drastic improvement to the education of students with disabilities, I have also seen some problem areas. If students are being placed in general education classes, then they also need a fulltime teacher who is competent and equipped to give them the help they need.
We have definitely made progress in special education in the United States. Rather than segregating students with disabilities, most schools are implementing inclusion programs to unify general and special education. With this progress there is room for improvement. When I consider my classroom of twenty nine students including eleven with mild disabilities, I know we have not reached our goal. These students are in a general education setting with one teacher. How much can be done for their individual needs? This classroom should also have a special education teacher and should be equipped to facilitate the needs of these students. We are fooling ourselves if we are integrating students with disabilities without providing them with the necessary services. Classrooms are also ill-equipped; there is a lack of technology that would enhance the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities. I know this is not a problem in every school, but as an educator who believes in equal opportunities for all students, I am not certain that all students are receiving an equal education.
Students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggests, however, that there is still cause for concern about the dropout levels of students with disabilities nationwide. It is imperative that we acquire a better understanding of the new rules and regulations in order to assist these students. Schools definitely need to provide more professional development for teachers who have limited experience in working with students with disabilities. How can we sufficiently serve students with disabilities when we are not trained to meet their needs? I am not against inclusion, but if we are mandated to educate as many students with disabilities as possible in the regular education classroom, the resources must be provided to meet their unique, individual needs.


References
Johnson, J.A., Musical, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundation of American Education: Perspective on education in a changing world. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Retrieved July 28, 2008 from
http://www.cpd.usu.edu/asset.php?id=797