ith Disabilities Education Act). With time this law was tested and brought into consideration in a multitude of cases involving disabled students. For example, in the case of Oberti v. Board of Education in 1993 the notion of educating children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment in an appropriate and efficient manner was once again ruled in favor of by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However in the case of the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley the Supreme Court stated that PL 94-142 was intended to provide a “open door” for disabled students to succeed, and could not be held liable for providing the best possible of all services.With the heavy cost of the special education, about 22% or $30 billion of the budget, many politicians and administrators would like to come up with a more cost effective solution. “Most hope to save money by pushing disabled children out of the small, specialized classes that many of them need to succeed and into crowded, ill equipped classrooms where they will compete with non disabled peers”, says Brent Staples (author of article #33). Many people consider Learning disabilities as a “minor” disorder and think that children diagnosed as being LD could be easily thrust in to a regular classroom. Some even think that mainstreaming these children will help to build social skills and prepare them for the real world. While mainstreaming may help to reduce the cost is it worth the distractions all other kids will have to put up with or the added challenges the special child will have to face. “Imagine a real-life classroom where all of the children are nondisabled except the one who drools uncontrollably, who hears voices or who can’t read a simple sentence when everyone else can”. Despite some peoples dislike I think that the children of special education under PL 101-476 have and deserve the ...
