U.S. Law Provides for Public Education of Disabled Children

Date November 29, 1975

The U.S. Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act to ensure that all school-age children in the United States would receive a free, appropriate education, regardless of any disabilities they might have.

Also known as Education for All Handicapped Children Act; U.S. Statutes at Large 82 Stat. 81; Public Law 90-284; U.S. Code 25 § 1301

Locale Washington, D.C.

Key Figures

• Thomas Gilhool (fl. late twentieth century), attorney who litigated Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• Joseph C. Waddy (1911-1978), trial judge who presided over Mills v. Board of Education
• John Brademas (b. 1927), U.S. congressman from Indiana and chair of the House Select Education Subcommittee

Summary of Event

In the early 1970’s, increased attention focused on the need to provide appropriate education programs to disabled children in the United States. A major impetus for this increased public attention came from litigation in the federal courts. In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), mentally retarded children represented by Thomas Gilhool sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, claiming that they were denied constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under Pennsylvania’s educational system. As a result of this litigation, Pennsylvania entered into a settlement agreement with the mentally retarded citizens of the state that mandated that Pennsylvania provide each mentally retarded child with a free public program of education that would be appropriate to each individual child. Although many school districts objected—claiming that they would be unable to fulfill the mandate of a free, appropriate education for mentally retarded children—the settlement nevertheless became the law of Pennsylvania. School districts were compelled to comply with the settlement agreement.

In Mills v. Board of Education (1972), a variety of students with disabilities who were denied admission to or excluded from public schools brought suit to obtain free, appropriate education within the District of Columbia. A wide variety of students were included as plaintiffs in the Mills litigation, including developmentally disabled, emotionally disturbed, hyperactive, and behaviorally involved students. As in the Pennsylvania ease, the school officials who were named as defendants admitted that they had a duty to provide disabled students with a publicly supported education designed to fulfill the students’ needs. The defendants, however, later failed to fulfill their agreements, and Judge Joseph C. Waddy of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a sweeping order in 1972 that directed that children with disabilities be provided adequate educational services suited to their individual needs, together with a periodic review of the status, progress, and adequacy of such programs. The court further ordered that each child of school age must receive such an education regardless of the degree of the child’s mental, physical, or emotional disability. Finally, the court ordered that no child could be excluded on the basis of a claim of insufficient resources.

In the wake of these landmark decisions, advocacy groups lobbied extensively in Washington to obtain a federal mandate that every child in the United States with a disability receive a free, appropriate public education. In May, 1974, John Brademas, chair of the Select Education Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced a sweeping measure that set a deadline of October 1, 1978, for states to provide an appropriate education for all disabled children. Congressional hearings were conducted in the Ninety-fourth Congress, and on November 29, 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was enacted. In its final form, the statute required that all states that received federal educational aid provide every disabled student with a free, appropriate public education.

In enacting the EAHCA, Congress noted several facts that established the inadequacy of special education programs in the United States. For example, in the mid-1970’s, more than half of the approximately eight million children with disabilities in the nation did not receive appropriate educational services, one million of these children were totally excluded from public school education, and many children with disabilities were enrolled in inappropriate and unsuccessful programs as a result of the failure of school officials to recognize their needs.

Congress also found that these inadequate services forced families to find services outside the public school systems, often at significant expense and inconvenience. Congress recognized that inadequate resources had been provided to local educational agencies to provide disabled children with appropriate education and that, with appropriate resources, available instructional procedures and methods would provide effective special education and related services to these children. Congress specifically noted that the national interest compelled the education of all children with disabilities in order to ensure the equal protection of the law for all school-age children. Finally, Congress stated that the purpose of the EAHCA was to ensure that all disabled children obtained free, appropriate public education that would emphasize special education and related services designed to meet individual needs.

The EAHCA utilized a carrot-and-stick approach with states by providing federal funds for special education programs in those states that complied with the mandate of the EAHCA. Substantial amounts of federal money were made available to states that complied, and virtually all states quickly came into compliance with the act in order to obtain such federal monies.

To receive federal funding under the EAHCA, a state had to demonstrate to the U.S. Department of Education that several factors were in place. These included the existence of a state policy assuring all children with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public education and the submission of a plan by the state that set forth policies to ensure that monies received were expended as required by the EAHCA and in conformity with procedural safeguards as required by the act. Moreover, a state’s plan had to set forth procedures designed to maximize the “mainstreaming” of disabled children within public schools—that is, the education of disabled children alongside children without disabilities.

The EAHCA mandated that disabled children of school age receive a free, appropriate special education program with “related services.” The act provided that virtually all children with disabilities would be entitled to special education and related services. Children with disabilities who did not require special education or related services in order to learn were not covered by the act, but such children were relatively rare. Therefore, all disabled children who were physically or mentally impaired and because of their impairments required special attention to learn were protected and covered by the act. The major mental disabilities included were mental retardation, mental illness, learning disabilities, and social and emotional disturbances. Physical disabilities included hearing, visual, and orthopedic impairments.

The act mandated a free, appropriate public education for all disabled children between the ages of six and eighteen years. The act also mandated equal treatment for these children in states where the ages of education extended beyond those years, such as for kindergarten or preschool programs or programs beyond age eighteen.

Prior to the EAHCA’s enactment, it was not unknown for school districts to provide free educational services to children without disabilities while requiring parents of disabled children to provide financial assistance for the education of their children. Such policies were particularly oppressive, given that most parents of children with disabilities were already financially strained by their children’s needs. Therefore, the EAHCA mandated that all aspects of a disabled child’s educational program—including evaluation, design of a program and services, and placement—be free of charge.

The act used simple language to define the educational programs that had to be provided to children with disabilities. Congress used the term “appropriate” to define such programs and mandated that they would consist of “specialized instruction” designed to meet the individual needs of a child together with such “related services” as were necessary to assist the child to benefit from an educational program. Such related services were to include, but not be limited to, transportation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, psychological services, and diagnostic and evaluative medical services.

The EAHCA mandated that the educational program for each disabled child be set down in writing in an individualized education program (IEP). The IEP was designed to be the product of a cooperative effort between school officials and parents. An IEP was meant to describe the child and set forth a program designed to meet that particular child’s educational needs. In mandating the IEP process, Congress dramatically revamped the educational planning process for children with disabilities. In the past, school officials had simply told parents what, if anything, they would offer to a disabled child. The IEP process mandated that schools and parents work cooperatively in designing a program to meet the individual child’s needs. Moreover, in case disagreements existed at the end of the IEP planning process, Congress mandated that states establish extensive due process procedures to resolve such differences. An impartial hearing officer was empowered to resolve any factual disputes regarding the evaluation, classification, program, or placement of a disabled child. Parents had the right to be represented by counsel, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to produce evidence, and to appeal the decision of the hearing officer.

The EAHCA provided that, consistent with each child’s needs, the programs for children with disabilities must allow for the maximum amount of integration with nondisabled children. The act also required that the parents of disabled children receive written notice at any time the school district sought to change their children’s evaluations, classifications, programs, or placements. Schools were also required to notify parents of available due process procedures. Written consent had to be obtained from parents prior to an initial evaluation, and a child could not be moved from a classification without the approval of parents or the approval of an impartial due process hearing officer.

Significance

The consequences of the EAHCA were widespread. Whereas children with disabilities had once been relegated to basement classrooms for limited instruction or received no instruction at all, the EAHCA spawned a vast array of programs for these children. Funding for special education rose dramatically on the federal, state, and local levels. Children with disabilities came to be accepted integral parts of neighborhood schools and frequently participated in the full panoply of school events with their nondisabled peers.

Programs to train teachers in special education intensified in colleges across the United States, and additional research formulated often-dramatic new techniques for educating children with disabilities. Technological devices such as computers came to be the norm in many special education programs, and many disabled students attained goals and self-sufficiency previously thought to be unattainable. The IEP process became second nature to school districts and parents alike, and many disabled children also participated in this planning process.

As both parents and school districts employed due process procedures with increasing frequency, the goal of educating children with disabilities slowly became, in the eyes of many observers, more litigious and attorney-oriented than initially envisioned by Congress. Congress acknowledged this fact in 1986, when it amended the EAHCA to allow for the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees to parents who prevailed in due process hearings. In 1990, Congress further amended the act and provided a new title, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In the 1990 amendments, Congress expanded the scope of disabilities and services under the act by including autism and traumatic brain injury as separate categories for eligibility and by adding rehabilitation counseling and social work services to the definition of related services. The act was further amended in 1997 and again in 2004 by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA).

Bibliography

Handicapped Students and Special Education. 7th ed. Rosemount, Minn.: Data Research, 1990. Comprehensive, readable overview of the rights of children with disabilities under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, including valuable discussion of all aspects of the rights and duties of students, parents, and school districts.

Murdick, Nikki L., Barbara C. Gartin, and Terry Crabtree. Special Education Law. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002. Presents an overview of special education law and how litigation and legislation have influenced special education services for children.

Reynolds, Cecil, and Elaine Fletcher-Janzen. Concise Encyclopedia of Special Education. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. Serves as a wide-ranging source on a variety of issues and concepts in special education. The text is arranged in alphabetical order, provides references regarding each entry, and is thoroughly indexed.

Tucker, Bonnie, and Bruce Goldstein. Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Horsham, Pa.: LRP, 1991. Provides accurate and authoritative information through an analysis of federal law concerning the rights of individuals with disabilities. Discusses the Education for All Handicapped Children Act from a variety of perspectives, including state educational plans, eligibility for federal funds, description of terminology and concepts, procedural safeguards, access to records, substantive rights, and relationship to the Rehabilitation Act.

Weiner, Roberta, and Maggie Hume. And Education for All: Public Policy and Handicapped Children. 2d ed. Alexandria, Va.: Education Research Group, 1987. This text can be approached as a summary of legislative, legal, and regulatory histories that surrounded the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, together with an evaluation of likely future trends in special education.