Using a Historical Perspective to Understand Current Policy on Educational Placements for Students with Disabilities

Catherine Aurentz  Griffith, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia

Why does the federal government have a stake in where students with disabilities are educated when Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) are developed at the local school level through the participation of parents, students, school administrators, general and special educators, and other relevant service providers? Most educators are cognizant of the federal government’s top-down influence on education through the recent education legislation, No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001; but this control did not begin with NCLB, as the federal government’s power has permeated special education for the past 30 years through P.L. 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act [EHCA], 1975). Understanding why the federal government became involved in the education of students with disabilities through the federal mandates in P.L. 94-142 and how this involvement currently influences educational placements for students with special needs is of continuing interest to special educators everywhere.  In this essay I want to suggest that educators who want to understand the pervasive federal influence in local placement decisions would do well to explore the historical context of special education placements.

Prior to 1975, states and local school districts/divisions had the right to determine where and how students with disabilities were educated in the public schools.  Placement was not a function of federal law; the Constitution did not reserve control over education for the federal government. The pivotal civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) helped promote the concept of equal opportunity for all students, not just African Americans, in the public schools; however, the conceptual framework for equal educational opportunities students with disabilities failed to manifest in reality until years later when powerful parent advocacy groups helped to influence federal judicial decisions and legislation (see Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 1972; Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 1972).

Passage of EHCA provided the federal mandate.  In particular, through the following assertions included in Section 601 of the EHCA (1975), the federal government justified its role in officially altering the power structure among the localities, states, and the federal government by assuming the authority to make educational decisions for students with disabilities:

(3) More than half of the handicapped children in the United States do not receive appropriate educational services which would enable them to have full equality of opportunity;

(4) one million of the handicapped children in the United States are excluded entirely from the public system and will not go through the educational process with their peers.

(9) It is in the national interest that the Federal Government assist State and local efforts to promote programs to meet the educational needs of handicapped children in order to assure equal protection of the law.

As evidenced through these direct citations from EHCA, the federal government was concerned about the exclusion of students with disabilities; therefore, Congress initially created this legislation to enforce protection of exceptional children’s equal educational opportunities. Under this law, students with disabilities are provided a “free and appropriate public education,” and the local school districts/divisions are expected to create interdisciplinary teams to determine these children’s instructional goals and educational placements. Additionally, Congress shifted some of the responsibility for educating students with disabilities to the federal government because many of these students were not receiving appropriate educational services.

Special educators should understand that the federal mandates outlined in P.L. 94-142 and in its reauthorization in 2004 (see Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004) were not implemented to denigrate individuals with special needs; instead these mandates were established to protect and provide educational services to these children and adolescents. However, as historians Jean Crockett and James Kauffman (1999) explained in their historical analysis of the “least restrictive environment” (LRE), these mandates are sometimes falsely misinterpreted. For example, the IDEA federal regulations (1999) define the LRE as “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled” (§ 300.550). Crockett and Kauffman emphasized that some individuals interpret the LRE to mean that students should be educated to “the greatest degree possible” in the general education setting, rather than using the accurate legal wording of to “the maximum extent appropriate” (p. 19). They argued that different interpretations lead to opposing views on the appropriate educational placement for students with disabilities; however, as they discussed, interpreting the law differently does not make it accurate.

Crockett and Kauffman (1999) use an historical perspective on the LRE to help frame the current movement in special education for full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with their nondisabled peers. Total exclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings in the past has influenced some individuals to consider special education placements (e.g., educational settings that are separate from nondisabled peers) as restrictive and harmful; however, Crockett and Kauffman clarified why special education placements are beneficial for some students with disabilities and should not be totally removed. They urged special educators to become aware of (a) the misconceptions of the LRE being interpreted from the federal legislation and regulations and (b) how history influences these misinterpretations. Eliminating special education classes for some students with disabilities would essentially deny these children and adolescents their free and appropriate public education.

 In conclusion, a historical perspective is essential to understanding why federal mandates were implemented to regulate students with disabilities’ educational placements; however, special educators should evaluate carefully how previous transgressions against students with disabilities influence present interpretation of the LRE.  Moreover, special educators should keep in mind that separate education settings for some exceptional students are advantageous.

References

Brown v. the Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) of 1975. (1975). Public Law 94-142.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. (2004). Public Law108-446.

Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. (2001). Public Law 107-110.

Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).