Search Results

This chapter discusses the historical and legislative background to the adoption of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975. It begins with an overview of the evolution of laws requiring the education of children with disabilities, with particular emphasis on issues of exclusion and segregation. It then examines Congress's passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 and the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1971 in response to cases in which courts concluded that the constitutional rights of children with disabilities were being violated by their exclusion from school or by their receiving inferior education in segregated classrooms. It also explores the legislative history of the EAHCA and highlights the link between disability discrimination in education and racial segregation. Finally, it analyzes some of the important concepts of the EAHCA that are still basic to federal disability education law, including a free and appropriate public education and individualized education programs.

This chapter examines how and why the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) and its successor, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), have fallen short of ambitious promises for social reform. It explains that the educational rights of disabled children, established in the Act (EAHCA), arose within a broad context of social reform and highlights the limitations of the provisions of EAHCA. This chapter argues that the EAHCA has only succeeded in enabling parents to raise individualized, technical disputes over their children's disability diagnoses and needs.

This chapter describes the story of Amy Rowley and her family to show how the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) has affected the lives of children with disabilities. It examines three themes that emerge from the Supreme Court case involving Amy, who is deaf. First, Amy's story reveals the enormous toll on the family as her parents persevered for years to help her obtain an interpreter in the classroom. Second, her story demonstrates that victories can often be shallow because of the ability of a school district to resist a court order. Third, her story exemplifies that justice delayed is justice denied, because a child can never truly recover lost education. The chapter also highlights the continued shortcomings of the EAHCA, which later became the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that are apparent throughout Amy's story.

This chapter discusses Congress's attempts to amend the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was later replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), after 1975. It begins with an overview of 1977 amendments, followed by amendments in 1983 and 1986 including those dealing with attorney fees and infants and toddlers with disabilities. It then examines amendments made during the 1990s as well as the concerns expressed by some special education advocates that the special education law (now renamed IDEA) was not serving the needs of poor and minority students. It also considers amendments relating to eligibility, individualized education programs, racial disproportionality in disability identification, private school education, and the ability of school districts to discipline children with disabilities. The chapter concludes with an assessment of 2004 amendments to the IDEA.

This chapter describes the story of Michael Panico and his family to show how the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), which was later replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), has affected the lives of children with disabilities. It narrates how Michael's parents had to fight for years with the assistance of pro bono legal counsel in order for him to win the right to attend a private school that could give him an adequate education. It examines the Supreme Court case involving Michael—the dispute in this case arose over the content of the individualized education program proposed by the school district on June 28, 1979, for the 1979–1980 school year (fourth grade)—and shows that his story reflects the sloppy way in which many school districts implemented the EAHCA in the early days of enforcement.