In the United States, children's education is upheld by the society, and both the federal and state governments have developed various policies to ensure all children access quality education. The disabled children have different challenges either physical or mental which affect their ability to receive instruction like other regular students. The federal government has developed various laws which have been imperative in improving access to quality education services. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the IDEA of 2004 have been instrumental in guiding the provision of special education. Although the laws may be deemed to have differences, the IDEA was conceived to seal the gaps that were not fulfilled by the 1975 Act.
Before the introduction of Education for All Children with Disability Act in 1975, there was no detailed law to guide in the provision of education for the disabled children. It is noteworthy that the various forms of disability require that children receive specialized instruction to ensure that they achieve significant milestones both intellectually and socially. The law was, therefore, established on the primary tenets of providing funding for the states to make sure that they cater for the required education programs (Douglass, 1979). The law also recognized the children’s right to education. The law recommended the provision of free special education public schools To curb the barriers to access the services for children whose households were below the national poverty index,
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In 2004, the federal government introduced IDEA which sought to seal the gaps that had not been satisfied by the 1975 Act. It is noteworthy that although the law required the state to provide special education, it did not provide a mechanism or guide on how such services were to be provided (Douglass, 1979). The conflicting evaluation and recommendation for the appropriate-education prompted the government to introduce a more comprehensive law.
The two laws have various similarities. The first similarity lies in the definition of special education. The two Acts recognize special education to be comprised of both instruction and allied services. This definition has been founded on the reality that unlike children with disabilities the challenged children have to be assisted in literally everything they do at school and home although this is also determined by the severity of their disability (Gartin & Murdick, 2005). For instance, in a school setting the children may require specialized washrooms, special chairs, assisted moving, individual games, special boarding facilities among others. The inclusion of the allied services in the Acts was to ensure that the children enjoy holistic development just like the normal children.
The two laws are also clear on the prohibition of any form of discrimination. The Act of 1975 was critical on racial and ethnic discrimination since it was a primary issue in during the period (Douglass, 1979). The law also gave guidelines for parents to raise concerns whenever they felt that their children were subjected to discriminatory practices. The 2004 Act was anchored on this provision and also expounded on the evaluation criteria for children to seal the gaps that were deemed to be loopholes for discrimination (Gartin & Murdick, 2005). It is noteworthy that the 1975 Act was challenged for failing to consider the necessity for the application of children’s specific language during evaluations. The legal implication of this is that there were numerous concerns for the parents as a result of perceiving various evaluation methods to be discriminative. IDEA made it possible for school representatives and teachers to exonerate themselves since the law provided for the inclusion of more parties in the evaluation committees.
The two Acts also have several differences. The first Act has ingrained the constitution and considerations of the Individualized Education Program (IEP). The 1975 Act provided for the formation of IEP which was determined by the parents of the disabled child, a teacher, and school representative (Weintraub et al., 1977). The considerations that the team made included assessing the child’s level of performance, the objectives of the special programs which were recommended for the children and the criteria for assessing the children’s achievements.
This was improved through the enactment of the IDEA whereby the IEP was made to consist of more members including the parent of the disable child, a regular teacher, a special instructor, a representative from the local education administration, an individual who can interpret instruction implications, an expert in the area of the child's specific disability and the children when appropriate. Also, the considerations of the comprehensive group also changed. The current IEP focuses on the strength of the child, the concerns that the parents may be having regarding the type of instruction recommended for the child, academic and functional performance of the child.
The change in IEP has had various legal implications particularly to do with alleged discrimination. The big team that assesses the ability of the child and the appropriateness of varied instruction programs has drastically reduced the number of dissatisfied parents. The representatives from education bodies and experts help to identify what is best for the child without any subjective tendencies.
Furthermore, the Acts vary in the provision for the integration of both the disabled and nonhandicapped children in a regular class. The Act of 1975 did not recommend the inclusion of children in regular classes. This decision was informed by the belief that the disabled children would interfere with the proper running of the class as a result of their individual needs. The decision had a legal implication that required the courts to determine what constituted appropriate placement. The rationale for this is that the federal government required the courts to rule on the best placement methods that were based on the best interest of children. The lack of a uniform application of law resulted in a significant number of parents and guardians seeking the interpretation of the l by the courts. This, however, changed with enactment of the IDEA which provided for the establishment of a relatively uniform description of Individualized Education Programs for the different forms of disabilities (Smith, 2005). This described the placement services that are useful for children with different types of disabilities. Besides, the law allowed the inclusion of disabled children in regular classes with the objective of enhancing their social development.
In conclusion, Education for All Disabled Children Act of 1975 and the IDEA of 2004 have been instrumental in guiding the education of children with different forms of mental and physical challenges. Both Acts prohibit any form of discrimination in the process of providing education to children as well as offering comprehensive services to facilitate a holistic growth. IDEA seals the gaps that were left by the initial act particularly in the integration of children during learning, providing appropriate assessment, placement, and evaluation.
References
Douglass, J. G. (1979). Note: Enforcing the Right to an" Appropriate" Education: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Harvard Law Review , 92 (5), 1103.
Gartin, B. C., &Murdick, N. L. (2005). Idea 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special Education , 26 (6), 327-331.
Smith, T. E. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial and Special Education , 26 (6), 314-319.
Weintraub, F. J., Abeson, A., &Zettel, J. (1977). The End of Quiet Revolution: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Exceptional Children , 44 (2), 114-128.
