The United States of America has designed laws to assist students with disabilities that date back to the birth of the American nation (Salend, 2011). Indeed, the first of such laws was passed by Congress in 1798. It took into consideration the care of students with disabilities in the educational set up. Maine Hospital Service was compelled to provide specialized care to disabled child. However, with time, little regard was placed on the need to legislate laws to take care of children with disabilities. Before the Second World War, there were not many laws to take care of students with disabilities (Dybwad, 1980).
Salend (2011) writes, “Least restrictive environment is identified in the U.S Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as one of the six principles that govern the education of students with disabilities and other special needs” (p. 103). The Federal laws require schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment that is appropriate to the individual students’ needs (Advocacy Handbook: A ParentĂs Guide for Special Education 2003, p. 7). One of the cases that set this requirement in motion was the Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989).
Daniel was refused fulltime admission because of his disability. Although the parents sought redress from the courts, their appeal was rejected because the schools and the court found that the child was not gaining anything in school.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education (1989) is a case that is significant in many ways. It is indeed a landmark law that created a platform for including children with disabilities in normal classes as well as in extracurricular activities. Leal (2002) writes, “Congress, created a strong preference in favoring mainstreaming; that is, educating the student in regular education with supports” (p. 141).
However, the court was quick to point out that it was improper to have such a child in school fulltime. This was a bit contradictory. The interpretation of the court concerning environments was deemed restrictive and laid a foundation that was to be followed by other courts. The court deemed it appropriate that schools should have developed content that would be tailor-made for students with disabilities (Leal, 2002).
The court, in this case, observed that students with disabilities could not be expected to understand the content as well as those who have no disabilities. As observed above, the supplementary services that should have been provided for those students with disabilities included the modification of normal school programs where required. This would be appropriate so that the needs of the disabled students would be met without breaking the provision of the relevant Federal Laws (Salend, 2011).
In this case, the court observed that it was proper for schools to adjust their programs “beyond recognition” (Salend, 2011). The schools were duty bound to evaluate whether a child could be admitted on a regular educational set up. In doing so, schools had to determine whether a student was capable of benefitting from regular placement. As a result, the court expected schools to consider the broader or long-term benefit from contact with the disabled child or student so that they could modify their behavior and succeed in socializing with the normal students.
Personally, I agree with the court’s decision in this case. If there enough aids to assist the disabled child, then the ruling would have been otherwise. The case is significant since it provides a platform on how schools can provide support for the disabled. Schools need to provide an environment that favors all the students. Since private schools are able to take care of such students, public schools can do even better.
References
Advocacy Handbook: A ParentĂs Guide for Special Education. (2003). Web.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, 874F.2d 1036. 88-1279. (1989).
Dybwad, G. (1980). Avoiding the misconceptions of mainstreaming, the least restrictive environment, and normalization. Exceptional Children, 47, 85-90.
Leal, D. (2002). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Salend, S.J. (2011). Creating Inclusive Classrooms, Effective and Reflective Practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall-Merrill.