Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Education special ed is not a scandal special ed is not a scandal I think the biggest most important law having to due with education and the general public is PL 94-142. It is because of this laws effect on the school system and the impact that it left in the history of special education that I chose to write about it. Implemented in the 1970’s PL 94-142 is responsible for a change in which all handicapped children are entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), a change that gave the disabled a fighting chance towards education in a world that was very discriminating. This law was amended in 1983, 1986 and reauthorized in 1990 ensuring that every child receives an individualized appropriate education in the least restrictive environment at no cost to the parents. Although PL 94-142 is a great law and has protected many Americans since it first went into effect in 1975 times were not always so good. In the early days of education it was not uncommon for the mentally challenged to be sent home from school denied their right to learn. Parents would have to find alternative methods or institutions for their child’s learning and usually pay a hefty price for what should of come for free. However, a steady line of law suites continually bombarded local states. Famous cases like Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania set the way for transition in the early 1970’s by “challenging segregated, inconsistent, or nonexistent programs for educating children with disabilities”. Success in these cases won the plaintiff’s the right for a free appropriate education, an Individualized Educational Program, and due process procedures. It was as this time that PL 94-142 first came into effect. Eventually Education for All Handicapped Children ACT (EAHCA) led to today’s version PL 101-476 other wise known as IDEA (Individuals with 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 right to a proper education. I think this law is something that everyone in education comes in contact with almost on a daily basis. As a teacher I will undoubtedly be working with some disabled students while being placed in situations involving IEP’s. I agree with the law and most of the rulings/ outcomes of the cases I reviewed while preparing for this paper. I think that a free appropriate education while being expensive is beneficial to both the regular and special ed students Bibliography: Word Count: 727
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests