Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

2010s

2017 Endrew vs. Douglas County School District

-What is an appropriate education under IDEA?-

What- Endrew, student with autism, was not making yearly progress towards his IEP goals.Parents removed him from the public school, and sued the school claiming he was not being given a FAPE. .

Result- school must create IEPS that yield more than the bare minimum for those with disabilities to ensure they are provided a FAPE

Impact on SPED- clealy defined the standard for a FAPE and requires IEPS that hold students with disabilities to a higher standard based off of their abiliity.

2015 ESSA

  • Purpose-ensure that students attain learning goals in safe classrooms
  • replaced NCLB/reauthorization of ESEA
  • less federal government involvement
  • elimanted accountability requirements- states can set their own long term goals within the accountability framewok of the law and prove achievement through testing schedule
  • Impact on Sped- Allowed for less corrective action /repurcutions when states were meeting proficiency standards early on.
  • Statewide Standards developed by the state to coincide with higher education state standards
  • Impact on SPED- provide students with the tools and information directly related to their post-secondary transition.

1990s

1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA)

  • renamed the EAHCA
  • Purpose-ensure each student with a disability receives a FAPE, individualized special education/related services to prepare for life after school, protect the student's & famly's rights, to assist involved agencies in providing said services

1997 IDEA Amendments

  • replaced "handicap" with term "disability" & "people first language"
  • Why? The INDIVIDUAL is emphasized, not the disability.
  • Autism & TBI were added to disability categories
  • Clarified assitive technology, related services, and rehabiltation services

1993 Florence County School District 4 v. Shannon Carter

  • Parents sued schol district for tuition of private school, after they expressed disatisfaction with the SPED & related services provided for their daughter (not receiving FAPE).
  • Result- Court ruled in favor of the family, and enforced that the IDEA a)allows parents a voice in the SPED process b) claims school's are responsible for tuition when FAPE isnot provided

2020s

2023 Perez v Sturgis Public Schools

What? School district did not provide Perez with trained sign language interpreter for 12 years resulting in him not qualifying for a diploma, post secondary education at school for the deaf, and a lack of communication skills now at 27 years old.

Why? Denial of FAPE & use of discrimination violating under ADA & IDEA

Results-court dismissed his ADA violation claim because he failed to use up his right to court proceedings under the IDEA. The parties settled, and the district paid for Perez' post secondary education.

Implications for SPED-further litigation & increased clarification is needed to improve family communication, transtion services, and certified personnel/training when it comes to providing SPED services for students with disabilities.

2023 Public Act 23-137

Why? address CT's level of state services re: transition services & procedural safeguards

How? Requires the CSDE (Connecticut State Department of Education) to enfore a" statewide transitionservices coordinator" in order to establish best practices and services for the individual student with disabilities (Sommaruga 2023). Act requires for traning of both transition coordiator and educational staff with transition information for qualifying students of the district. Act also requires for proper notice to family's regarding transition services/plans to assist in post-secondary preparedness.

Impact on SPED-for student'slike Perez, through informative andeffectve services, this act could have aided in his district appropriately setting him up for success for post-secondary life/education.

2000s

2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

why? increase achievement of student's in public schools

how? states, schools & districts were held accountable for providing measurable achievement (with numercal data ) in reading and math within a certain time frame.

Impact on SPED- students with disabilities were included in the accountability ensuring schools provided those with disabilities equitable ducation.

2004 IDEA Improvement Act

  • builds on NCLB- emphasizing student achievement & accountability
  • Impact on SPED
  • identified what a qualified SPED teacher is
  • required use of scientifically proven instructional strategies (response to intervention) supporting LRE
  • states no longer need to use the discrepency formula when determining eligibility

1980s

1984 Smith vs. Robinson

  • Parent's are now allowed to collect Attorney's fees when suing a school AND the attorney can not sue the family to collect any fees because of the EAHCA

1986 Hadicapped Children Protection Act (HCPA)

  • Amended the EAHCA
  • allowed courts to give attorney's fees to guardians if they won when suing
  • Allowed for retroactive action re: this, making EAHCA no longer the only source of legal relief

1986 Amendments to HCPA

  • Provided funding opportunities for early intervention of infants & toddlers(0-3) with disabilities to states that implement statewide programs- which is now a part of the IDEA.
  • Individulized Family Service Plan (IFSP) & procedural safeguards are required when receiving these services- procedures & required information is clearly outlined in this law.

1960s

1965 Economic American Opportunity Act

Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

WHAT? federal government provided funding to states to aid in educating specific groups of children.

WHY? improve educational opportunties for students with disabilities & other"disadvantages"

1966 Title VI of ESEA (Education of Handicap Act)

1970s

1972 Mills v. Board of Education

What? Guardians of 7 students with a variety of disabilites sued District of Columbia's BOE

Why? The students, part of a "class" were excluded from WA's public education, violating the 14th amendment - the total exclusion of students with any disabiltiy = unconstitutional (citing Brown).

Impact on SPED:

  • Court outcome = Board was required to give a public education to ALL children with varying disabilites & due process safeguards
  • Court outcome= defined due process procedure for labeling, placement, & exclusion of those with disabilities (basis for EAHCA- seen below).

1972 Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Pennsylvania

What? PARC asserted students with mental disabilities were not getting public education

Why? PA was ignoring their constitutional responsibility to provide it- violating both the 14th Amendement (protection of the laws created after Brown) & student rights.

Impact on SPED:

  • Court outcome = ALL children with mental retadation ages 6-21 must be given a free public education in programs that are SIMILAR to their non disabled peers.
  • Led to Mills class action lawsuit
  • layed groundwork for educational rights of studentswith disabilites including further legislation seen below.

Historical Timeline of Special Education

1950s

1970 Education of Handicapped Act

  • Replaced Title VI of ESEA
  • Purpose- Combine and increase federal grant programs & funding for state & local levels.
  • How-
  • provided funding to states that agreed to expand/improve programs for students with disabilities.
  • provided funding for training teachers with disabled students at higher organizatons.
  • provided funding for "regional resource centers" that gave technical support to districts.

Casey Stevens

1954 Brown vs. BOE

Segregated schools was damaging to education opportunities of minorities. Violated the the protection clause of the 14th amendment & increased stigma on those segregated

SPED significance: "if segregation of race is a denial of equal education opportunity for black children, then te total exclusion of students with disabilities is too". Leading to increase in court cases that challenged for similar fixing of these inequeties.

Led to the extension of the protection doctrine to a "class" of people (minorities)

1958 Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act- funded by congress, teachers of disabled students were trained

1959 Training of Professional Personnel Act- funded by congress, leaders were further trained to educate disabled students

1973 Sectin 504 of Rehabilitation Act

  • Purpose- offer a nondiscrimination approach to avoid state's failure in educating ALL children with disabilities
  • Impact on SPED:
  • FIRST civil rights act protecting rights of students with disabilities
  • CLEAR DEFINITION of "handicapped"
  • Agencies receiving federal funding
  • COULD NOT discriminate based on disability
  • must provide proof of compliance
  • make necessary changes to correct violations
  • create INDIVIDUALIZED modifications & accomodations to provide services EQUAL to those without disabilities.

Brown vs. Board of Education

Brown Impact on SPED

  • Disability Advocates were able to cite Brown proving:
  • unnaceptable level of different treatment within the "class" of students with disabilities
  • not ALL students with disabilities were provided education, while ALL students without disabilities were
  • Led to increase in court cases challenging for similar fixing of same inequalities for disabled children
  • *PARC & Mills (1970s)
  • Concept of equal opportunity founded in this case served as basis for change in future state educational policies

ESEA

  • Aimed to reduce education gap
  • Evolution of the act led to
  • increased funding to individal states
  • regulation of access for all groups I.e. deaf, blind, bilingual students, handicapped
  • :Reauhorization of ESEA led to Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, No Child Left Behind 2001, Evey Student Succeeds Act 2015
  • Title VI of ESEA
  • single federal agency in charge of organizing efforts & legally enforcing the education of students with disabilities
  • provided "categorical funding" to educate students with disabilities through pilot programs which later became basis for Education of the Handicapped Act 1970.

ESEA Impact on SPED

EHA

EHA Impact on SPED

  • the first FREESTANDING special educationl law
  • legally required students with disabilities to be publically educated
  • required students with disabilities to receive special education supports and services necessary for development.
  • Basis for 1974 Education Amendments & 1975 Education for All Handicapped Education Act (EAHCA)

1974 Education Amendments

  • influenced by PARC & Mills
  • National Advisory Council on Handicapped Children created
  • States receiving SPED federal funding were required to create a goal re: educational opportunities provided for ALL students with disabilities.
  • So what? students with disabilities' RIGHT to education was solidified, procedural safeguards were created, funds for due process procedures allocated

Impact of Education Amendments & EAHCA

1975 EAHCA

  • Combined admin & funding incentives if for states that created policies that enforced a free & appropriate public education to all disabled students ages 3-18.
  • students had the right to: nondiscriminatory placement/testing procedures, LRE, free education, due process procedures

1990 IDEA

Impact of IDEA on SPED

  • established procedural safeguards- allowing parent inolvement to ensure FAPE is received
  • Categories of disabilities identified to ensure protection under the law
  • ITP (indidualized transition plan) was added to the requirements of the student's IEP to ensure proper progress towards successful transition in post-secondary environments.
  • IDEA Amendement required measurable achievement of the student to ensure a FAPE is provided.

ESSA

StatewideAssessments

  • must be accessible by all students (ELL & those with disabilities)
  • can be administered in chunks over the school year
  • designed to mirror UDL
  • dissagregating test results- allows for accurate assessment of school's commitment to educating all types of learners

AssessentAccomodations

  • Under IDEA & Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, eligible students are allowed testing accomodations compatible with their IEP (including alternate assessments and achievement stadards)
  • Students with severe disabilites are included in graduation rate even when given an alternate assessment

Further Impact ESSA on SPED

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi