Handling Children With Disabilities

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 1

Exploring Who Is Eligible For I.D.E.A. and Why?

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the immense changes that Special Education has undergone through the years and the different views of legislation on how to handle children with disabilities. When a state provides education to children, it must be provided on equal terms and the children of that state must not be denied the right to education without due process. We will explore laws governing who is eligible under the I.D.E.A. and the interpretations of various scenarios.
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 3

Over forty years ago, approximately three million children with disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services in the public schools.
Also, it is estimated that another one million were excluded totally from public education. Public school systems did not possess or did not want to commit the funds to educate special education students. Consider for a small and local school district, allocating funding for ten students could place a strain on the fiscal budget. However, in 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the EAHCA (Education For All Handicapped Children Act). Since that time, legislation and the interpretation of such has varied from one court to another.
In accordance with the article, “Who is Eligible Under the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act, this author takes notice that teaching Special Education and the laws governing the welfare of Special Education students has involved a lot of ups and down. What was discovered is that none of the methods utilized in Special Education are entirely right or wrong in addressing the educational needs of children with learning disabilities. Children with learning disabilities should be educated in the most appropriate way to meet their specific educational
needs.
It was after federal legislation passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) that monumental changes began to develop that allowed a better understanding of the needs and capabilities of people with various handicapping conditions. Soon after this legislation, Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for all Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 (EHA) would further increase the public awareness by providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children suffering from disabilities. Following the EHA legislation reformations
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 4

concerning the education of disabled individuals would soon become numerous and legislative acts were passed enabling accommodations for disabled students. The EAHCA went on to require states that participated in this act to support Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) to all qualified students from the ages of three (3) to age eighteen (18). The EAHCA also mandated that those students which were eligible, with an enumerated disability, had the right to a FAPE. Well, this complicated the issue for school personnel and districts. Due to the various interpretations, court by court and school district by school district, bottlenecks developed for the Courts and those involved. The Congress soon recognized that states had financial difficulties in providing educational services to children with disabilities.
As noted in the class reading with regard to the Amy Rowley v. Hendrick School District, the school district desired not to continue providing special education services to the daughter of the Rowleys. While delving into the content of this case, this author found that the Hendrick School District severely was negligent in their duty for educational services. This case was complicated, in that the daughter was extremely bright as far as her IQ was concerned. She simply had a hearing impairment, which prohibited her from receiving the same benefits as other children. The school district provided the parents with an interpreter, however the interpreter noted that Amy Rowley was reluctant to receive help. He did note that in later years, she may be a more viable candidate for assistance from an interpreter as coursework would become more difficult. Due to the disagreement of the parties, a hearing officer was called in. From that point, this case was heard by the Federal District Court in 1979. The Judge upheld the parents’ stance that the daughter was not receiving an appropriate education. The consequences of this interpretation can be noted because the child was extremely bright and the Hendrick School District felt
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 5

strongly that adequate educational assistance was provided. The case further was appealed to the Court of Appeals and the ruling was upheld 2-1. However, deliberation was noted that no discussion was noted on the word “appropriate”. Each person has a different viewpoint about what is appropriate regarding I.D.E.A. The Supreme Court reviewed this Rowley case and reversed the decision of the previous courts. The interpretation of this court weighed heavily on the outcome of this child’s fate. The ruling noted that the school district had indeed provided adequate and reasonable educational services to the child.
In kind, in the case of Yankton School District v. Harold and Angie Scramm, the school district held the position that the daughter was not eligible for special education services past her age, in spite of severe disabilities. Unlike the previous case involving Rowley, Tracy Schramm was severely inhibited for regular, everyday activities. An evaluator determined she was eligible for continued services and a hearing officer further stated that the school did not fulfill their responsibilities. The court’s interpretation upheld that the child, due to her various infirmities, was due to receive the continued special education services. The family also received payment for attorney’s fees. This author feels that the increased awareness for the needs of disabled students has been a much needed and fair development.
In the case of Doe v. Board of Education of the State of Ct., the issue is extremely different in that the parents of John Doe, Jr. were attempting to prove that their son needed special education. However, in accordance with the law, an individual must be suffering from varying levels of impairments. This student was at one time, in the gifted program of the system. The parents’

WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFITS UNDER THE I.D.E.A.? 6

stance on the behavioral issues of their son alone was not enough to sway the opinion of the trial court judgment. The irony of this situation is that the son operated normally during the formidable years of his schooling. When the behavioral problems ensued, then the parents sought psychiatric counseling and hospitalization for their son. The issue was not supported by the courts due to the fact he was mentally coherent. Some feel inclusion is the most beneficial method for educating children with learning disabilities. As defined by Jean B. Crockett and James M. Kauffman in The Least Restrictive Environment, inclusion is where children with disabilities are placed in regular education classes for the entire school day and are accompanied by special education teachers or aides for subjects where they need extra help (1). Others feel mainstreaming is the best option for students with learning disabilities. According to Crockett and Kauffman, mainstreaming is when students are in special education classes that work to address their specific needs for the majority of the day, but go to general education classes for certain subjects where they do not need special help (28).
Currently, in the Dougherty County School System, Director of Exceptional Students, Zora Allen infers that the laws of I.D.E.A.
and F.A.P.E. have enhanced the students’ ability to learn in a welcoming environment. As a pastor of individuals in my congregation with varying needs (children and adults), it is not difficult to understand how statutes need to be in place for learning environments. There are actually so many individuals who lack the mental or physical ability to co-exist in this society without the opportunity to learn on their level. In my view, we cannot just place these students in a class outside of inclusion and resort back to the era fifty years ago where we acted as if they did not exist. I hope that the laws governing special education will continue to be vamped to support the needs of the children and their
families.
Works Cited
Crockett, Jean B. and James M. Kauffman. The Least Restrictive Environment: Its Origins and Interpretations in Special Education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 1999.
Allen, Zora. Personal interview. 5 September 2013.
Rothstein, Laura F. Special Education Law. Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2000.