special education & ethics resource portfolio/edc 150 edc

Special Education & Ethics Resource Portfolio/EDC 150

EDC

LAW PORTFOLIO

The United States of America was built on the foundation of the Constitution and a series of laws and regulations safeguarding our freedoms and rights. Unfortunately these laws and regulations did not apply to all men and women of our country until the last few decades. Most recently, a law was passed in 1975 called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This act provided access to free and appropriate public education for every child with a disability (The IDEA 35th Anniversary). This act was the first of many to ensure rights to children with disabilities in the United States public school system.

As a special education teacher, understanding the laws and regulations governing the world of special education is absolutely imperative. Having knowledge of these laws and regulations ensures that all children with disabilities are receiving an appropriate education. As an educator, we serve as a primary advocate for our children. When our children are denied an appropriate education as directed under law, they are being set up for failure. As a special educator I want to serve my students under the fullest means of the law to ensure that they are provided an outstanding and appropriate education. I want my students to be one hundred percent prepared for life outside of the safe haven of our schools and be able to succeed independently in their life.

LAWS & REGULATIONS

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 – EAHCA

http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html

EAHCA of 1975 was the foundation and breakthrough for special education law. The act guaranteed access to a “free, appropriate, public education in the least restrictive environment to every child with a disability” (The IDEA 35th Anniversary). EAHCA would eventually evolve into the absolute special education law Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

LAWS & REGULATIONS


Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Acthttp://nichcy.org/laws

Section 504 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Under Section 504 a child with a disability is ensured equal access to an education with accommodations and modifications (Wrightslaw). Section 504 is extremely important for students who need special modifications and accommodations but do not qualify for special education services under the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

LAWS & REGULATIONS

http://nichcy.org/laws

Americans with Disabilities Act –ADA


The Americans with Disabilities Act is a general civil rights law prohibiting discrimination among individuals with disabilities. It ensures people with disabilities have appropriate accommodations and access to public venues, public transportation and other public services. The act also prohibits discrimination in all aspects of public services including employment and education. The act further extended children the ability to access all educational programs and services (Wrightslaw).

LAWS & REGULATIONS



Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 – IDEA

http://idea.ed.gov


IDEA is the catch all special education law providing services and programs for all disabled children (birth – 22). IDEA covers the entire spectrum of special education from general provisions to procedural safeguards. IDEA also covers evaluations, eligibility, IEPs, and placement of children with disabilities (Section 1414). Of the sections provided in IDEA, Section 1414 is a critical area of concern for special education educators. This section provides educators with regulations regarding evaluation procedures, identifying children with special needs and measurable goals.

LAWS & REGULATIONS

http://idea.ed.gov/

http://idea.ed.gov/


The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act – FERPA

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act is a federal statute that grants parents access to their children’s educational records as well as limits access to records without parental consent. While the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act is a general regulation governing education, the act does protect special education students and the various legal documents a special education student may have. These include IEPs, FBAs and other management plans.

The website found under the U.S. Department of Education provides a thorough summary of the legal requirements of FERPA. The website also offers the latest in press releases and memorandums relating to the policies under FERPA.

LAWS & REGULATIONS



No Child Left Behind – NLCBhttp://nichcy.org/laws

No Child Left Behind is a recent edition to our nation’s general public education law, modifying the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965. No Child Left Behind focuses on the achievement of students in critical core subjects

and holds schools accountable for how well students are learning. However, the law is argued

as not taking into consideration the special education community, ultimately leaving many

special education teachers and students vulnerable to misguided statistics and penalties.

LAWS & REGULATIONS


Laws and regulations are guided and interpreted by the legal cases that introduce specific issues. Once the case is reviewed by the Justice system, certain expectations are created calling for legal foundations. These specific cases, Brown v. Board of Education, PARC, Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia and other high profile proceedings have shaped and developed the legal environment for special education and civil rights.

Each legal proceeding acts as a stepping stone for greater improvement in the laws and regulations governing our education. Thorough knowledge and background information of these legal cases is essential in strengthening our foundation as special educators. Having knowledge of these cases also strengthens our respect for the laws and regulations governing special education and solidifies our professional endeavors. While many of these Supreme Court and District Court decisions are well known, it is important to take a look at the lesser known decisions and understand how are laws are formed. Understanding the basis behind each legal case gives us further insight on how to control or deal with certain situations in the future. As a goal, I would like to familiarize myself with many of the legal cases that have greatly impacted our special education and general education systems today. I want to look further than a court decision and investigate why a decision was made and its basis. Understanding the justice system and the historic cases that processed through this system are paramount to success in any profession.

INFLUENTIAL COURT CASES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954)

http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

This Supreme Court decision found that segregated public schools are inherently unequal stating “segregated schools have no place in the field of public education” (Special Education Law, p. 12). In consideration to children with disabilities, the decision should have proved applicable for children in segregated special education placements.

Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent in civil rights equality for general education. However, the fight for civil rights equality in special education would not be challenged until the late 1970s.



Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (PARC), 334 F. Supp. 1257 (1971)

http://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Parc/

This case challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania law that allowed children with disabilities to be excluded from public education. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania blatantly disregarded the provisions stemming from Brown v. Board of Education and segregated children with disabilities from the public.

This particular case, among several others, fueled the enactment of Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Until these cases surfaced, children with disabilities were still discriminated against and were not fully included in public education. In some states, admitting a disabled child into a public school was against the law. Fortunately, EAHCA would make segregation of disabled students from public schools illegal.



Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 343 F. Supp. 866 (1972)

http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/mills.htm

Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia was a case against the District of Columbia that ruled students with disabilities be provided a free and appropriate public education opposing any financial boundaries. The court stated, “… no handicapped child eligible for publicly supported education in the District of Columbia public schools shall be excluded from a regular school assignment…” (Mills v. Board of Education).

This case set a precedent for advocating students’ needs rather than the financial ability to provide services. The ruling also provided much needed federal assistance to public schools, providing better funding for the special education community.



Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)


This Supreme Court case was the first of many special education suits. The case challenged the Hendrick Hudson Board of Education and their failure to provide appropriate education under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Amy Rowley was a deaf student who had been denied the provision of a sign language interpreter due to school board’s decision that she “was achieving educationally, academically, and socially" (Wrightslaw). Amy Rowley’s parents contested the decision and the District Court ruled that Amy was being denied an appropriate education. This case ousted Congress’s poor attempt to define “free and appropriate public education” and instead redefined the meaning of “free and appropriate public education” after ruling in favor of the Rowley family.



Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)


This particular case came about after two significant emotionally disturbed children were expelled for actions related to their behavioral disabilities.

In this decision, the court clarified the procedural issues under Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA) to protect students with behavioral disabilities from unwarranted expulsion. The court ruled that students with emotional disabilities could not be suspended for dangerous acts until legal proceedings were completed. However, students could be temporarily placed if an immediate threat was posed. This decision changed the penalties placed on children who were not fully in control of their actions and possibly established the incorporation for the FBA under IDEA.



Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)


The parents of Shannon Carter, a student diagnosed with a learning disability, claimed that Florence County School District Four had “breached its duty under IDEA to provide Shannon with a “free appropriate public education” by failing to create an appropriate IEP (Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter). The Carters also sought reimbursement for tuition and other costs after placing their daughter in a private school.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Carters, stating if the public school fails to provide a “free and appropriate education” and the child receives a private education, the parents are then entitled for reimbursement. According to Wright (2011) this particular ruling opened the door to children with autism who receive ABA/Lovaas therapy. This ruling also supports other cases where students receive specialized care where costs are covered by the district rather than parents or guardians.



Baird v. Rose, 4th Circuit (1999)


Nancy Baird, on behalf of her daughter, claimed that teacher, Susan Rose, and the Fairfax County School Board were guilty of discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Virginia law (Baird v. Rose). The case evolved when Kristen Baird, a child with ongoing medical problems, attempted suicide after her drama teacher, Susan Rose, set her up for failure by staging an unjust music audition. Rose eventually barred Baird from participating in the school musical by reason of her medical condition. This act was a violation of the regulations under ADA, stating, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by any such entity" (Baird v. Rose).

The court decided on behalf of Baird stating she was discriminated against because of her medical condition. While the law does not protect people from discrimination, it does offer a legal route to confront this injustice. This case further reinforced the regulations of ADA as well as highlighted the legal consequences of discrimination.



Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 05-983 (2007)


The parents of Jacob Winkelman filed a complaint with the United States District Court of Ohio claiming the Parma City School District failed to provide their son with a “free and appropriate public education” as well as provide an adequate IEP or follow regulations under IDEA. Initially the court ruled that the Winkelman’s attempt to represent their son would be “derivative of the child’s right” and held that non-lawyer parents could not represent their children as public education “belongs to the child alone” (Winkelman v. Parma City School District).

After further appeal, the Supreme Court eventually ruled that parents had the legal right to represent their children in special education cases stating, “We conclude IDEA grants parents independent, enforceable rights. These rights, which are not limited to certain procedural and reimbursement-related matters, encompass the entitlement to a free appropriate public education for the parents’ child” (Winkelman v. Parma City School District). This landmark decision by the Supreme Court solidified a parent’s advocacy for their children rights in legal matters.



The commitment to upholding a code of ethical principles to ensure that the differences and special needs of children are recognized and respected is merely the foundation for ethics in special education. Organizations to include the Council for Exceptional Children and the National Association of Special Education Teachers promote these ethical codes to enhance the professional being of the special education community. These codes are not simply living up to morals of right and wrong, they build healthy and effective relationships between professionals and families with exceptionalities. Similar to the Bible’s Commandments, each ethical code challenges an individual to rise above the expectations of society and to live and practice in a dignified manner. Aside from ethical codes and upholding morals, special education also brings to the table the negative aspects of ethics. As a professional in special education, it is important to be aware of the dark side of ethics and how they can impact everyday practices. Simply, where there is support for special education and its programs, there is also a controversy involving certain aspects in the special education community.

In order to uphold ethical codes and promote meaningful environments for my students, I must be open to all conditions that arise within this uncertain field. Rising to this challenge includes stripping away any bias or ignorance and fully embracing the unexpected.

ETHICS

Council for Exceptional Children: Special Education Professional Ethical Principles

http://www.cec.sped.org

The Council for Exceptional Children is committed to upholding a code of ethical principles intending to respect the diversities of children with exceptionalities. The Council for Exceptional Children calls for special education professionals to promote “meaningful and inclusive participation of individuals with exceptionalities in their schools and communities” as well as “develop relationships with families based on mutual respect and actively involving families and individuals with exceptionalities in educational decision making” (CEC: Special Education Professional Ethical Principles).

ETHICS

http://www.cec.sped.org/

National Association of Special Education Teachers: Code of Ethics

http://www.naset.org

The National Association of Special Education Teachers provides a code of ethics that have established principles and guidelines intended to enrich professional excellence among special education teachers. NASET calls for professionals to recognize and respect “the inherent dignity and worth of the children with whom they work” and to maintain “the highest level of professionalism, integrity, and competence when working with children, youth parents, professionals, and all other members of society” (NASET: Code of Ethics).

ETHICS

http://www.naset.org/

The Practice of Special Education: Definitely Immoral, Potentially Illegal

by Edward Rozycki

Edward Rozycki (2002) claims in his article, The Practice of Special Education: Definitely Immoral, Potentially Illegal, that special education, particularly inclusion, “is a violation of the principle […] that we should always treat individuals as “ends in themselves,” not merely as means to our own or others ends” (8). Rozycki opposition towards special education stems from his concern regarding other “normal” students within an inclusion environment. Rozycki’s article attempts to identify ethical issues relating to special education.

ETHICS

Research-based strategies constantly develop and evolve as the focus on education strengthens. As students’ progress throughout the levels of education, teachers must be able to make precise distinctions to adhere to specific learning capabilities to properly educate their students. This concept specifically applies to special needs students and the necessity to reach their learning capabilities. These researched and practiced methods are often found in education publications such as Evidence for Education and Accelerate!

As a special education teacher, knowing the latest research in instructional techniques is extremely imperative in order to reach the intellectual abilities of all special needs students. With respect to the article Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Difficulties in Math: Four Approaches That Improve Results, having prior knowledge of a student’s cognitive abilities will promote effective learning. I hope that I will have the creative ability to motivate my students and to provide them with a unique and rewarding learning experience. To ensure that I am able to achieve these goals, I know I must be well rounded in teaching strategies, differentiated learning and be able to respect the learning styles and abilities of my students. It takes an effective teacher, a motivated teacher, and a teacher who cares to ensure that our students are being provided with the most engaging learning experiences. I can only hope and pray that I am able to provide my students with these experiences.

RESEARCH – BASED STRATEGIES

The SODA Strategyhttp://nichcy.org/research/ee/learning-strategies

Stephen Luke, in the journal Evidence for Education, offers a social learning strategy for children diagnosed with the Asperger’s Syndrome. The SODA

Strategy, an acronym for Stop, Observe, Deliberate, and Act, is intended to lead students to “successful social interactions” (Luke, p. 9). Each section asks a

question that leads into the next section of SODA. For example, “S” for Stop asks a student to evaluate the social setting they are in. The section “O” for Observe asks a student to be aware of social cues other students are using. The section “D” for Deliberate helps the student plan for the future social interaction. Section “A” for

Act encourages the student to engage in social interaction. This strategy calls for a student to constantly be aware of cues, behavior, meta-cognitive abilities, and

emotions. In order to function successfully within any environment, a person must be able to communicate appropriately.


http://nichcy.org/research/ee/learning-strategies

Pros: The SODA Strategy is a great strategy not only for students diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, but for other

children who may have difficulties working with others or in social settings.

Cons: The SODA Strategy if not properly used could make social situations awkward if the student is not smoothly transitioning through the process of the strategy. A slow and unstable transition could aggravate the

student and cause a situation to deteriorate.


The SODA Strategyhttp://nichcy.org/research/ee/learning-strategies


Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Difficulties in Math: Four Approaches That Improve Results

http://nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/eemath.pdf

In the article, Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Difficulties in Math: Four Approaches That Improve Results, Kathlyn Steedly, Kyrie Dragoo, Sousan Arafeh, and Stephen Luke (2008) raise the question of

what instructional approaches are effective in teaching mathematic skills (1). The authors introduce specific strategies investigated by the National

Mathematics Advisory Panel Report that have proved successful in students with a variety of disabilities. The four strategies include systematic and

explicit instruction, self-instruction, peer tutoring, and visual representation. Systematic and explicit instruction offers an approach to teaching through sequence. The self- instruction technique allows a student to manage their learning with “prompting or solution oriented questions” (Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh & Luke, p. 3). The peer tutoring aspect of instruction simply allows

pairing of students to complete tasks. Finally, the visual representation instruction technique uses pictures, number lines, graphs and manipulatives to

teach mathematics (Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh & Luke, p. 3).



Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Difficulties in Math: Four Approaches That Improve Results


Pros: The four strategies in mathematics instruction are not only proven effective, but also offer differentiated learning styles for all learners. The instruction

techniques are applicable to all students at every instructional level.

Cons: These strategies are great for abstract math concepts such as word problems and algebraic equations; however for students where grasping basic

math concepts are an issue, not all of these strategies are ideal. Depending upon which level of math a student is completing would determine which math strategy would work best. In this aspect, the use of differentiation would not be as great

causing some students to fall further behind.



Young EL Learning Strategies: From Abstract Concepts to Concrete Tools

http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/17/Accellerate4_2.pdf

In the article, Young EL Learning Strategies: From Abstract Concepts to Concrete Tools, authors Jill Robbins and Anna Chamot (2012) report that “learners who are fully conscious of their learning strategies are more likely to develop control over the learning process and become

effective learners” (7). Attributing this concept to all learners as well as to the task of language learning is associated with the Attribution Theory of self-regulated learning. A student who self regulates their

learning is essentially internalizing and controlling the factors of their own learning, overall positively affecting a student’s attitude. In

respect, the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) model provides instruction of learning strategies. The CALLA model is

organized into two groups, metacognitive strategies and task-based strategies (Robbins & Chamot, p. 7). The metacognitive strategies uses

students prior knowledge of learning strategies, while the task based strategy introduces new concepts of using animals and toys to make

abstract ideas concrete (Robbins & Chamot, p. 7).




Pros: The CALLA model reinforces the Attribution Theory of self-regulated learning. The teacher is

calling on the student to internalize and take their learning into their own hands. This technique is crucial in helping students build independence in

learning and creates a positive internal reward system of self-achievement.

Cons: The use of toys and stuffed animals to make abstract ideas concrete while a great tool for young language learners could be embarrassing for older

language learning students. Also if a student does not have previously learned strategies to work with, a

teacher must start from square one in teaching learning strategies. This process could be extremely

detrimental to time and defeats the idea of pulling from meta-cognitive strategies.


Young EL Learning Strategies: From Abstract Concepts to Concrete Tools



Americans with Disabilities Act – ADA. Web. 18 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). U.S. Department of Education. 8 Apr 2011. Web. 11 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 – IDEA. Web. 18 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws

Luke, Stephen. The SODA Strategy. Evidence for Education. Vol. 1, Issue 1. 9. 2006. Web. 31 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/research/ee/learning-strategies

Mills v. Board of Education. Kids Together, Inc. 29 Jun 2010. Web. 30 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.kidstogether.org/right-ed_files/mills.htm

REFERENCES











No Child Left Behind – NLCB. Web. 18 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws

“Pennsylvania Assn. for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania.” Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center. 2012. Web. 15 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http

://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Parc/

Protigal, S. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. 1999. Web. 10 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.scn.org/~bk269/94-142.html

Robbins, J. and Chamot, A. Young EL Learning Strategies: From Abstract Concepts to Concrete Tools. Accelerate! 2012. Vol. 4, Issue 2. 7-9. Web. 31 Jan 2012.

Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/17/Accellerate4_2.pdf

Rozycki, E. G. (2002). The Practice of Special Education: Definitely Immoral, Potentially Illegal. Educational Horizons, 81 (1), 8-9.

REFERENCES











Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Web. 18 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws

Steedly, K., Dragoo, K., Arafeh, S., and Luke, S. Effective Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Difficulties in Math: Four Approaches That Improve Results. Evidence for Education. Vol.

3, Issue 1. 3-9. 2008. Web. 31 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/wpontent/uploads/docs/eemath.pdf

The IDEA 35th Anniversary. U.S. Department of Education. 10 Jun 2011. Web. 11 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/index.html

Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. (2007). Special Education Law (2nd ed.). Hatfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press, Inc. 12-14.

REFERENCES




http://nichcy.org/wpontent/uploads/docs/eemath.pdf



http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/index.html



Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Baird v. Rose, 4th Circuit (1999). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Florence County School District Four v. Shannon Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

REFERENCES









Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Hendrick Hudson Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from


Wright, W. P. and Wright D. P. Winkelman v. Parma City School District, No. 05-983 (2007). 3 Nov 2011. Web. 12 Jan 2012. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/caselaw.htm

REFERENCES






special education & ethics resource portfolio/edc 150 edc

Documents

disabilities education

appropriate education

special education services

appropriate public education

world of special education

special education teacher

disabilities act adahttp

handicapped children