Source: https://b-ok.org/book/947191/808049
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 00:38:04+00:00

Document:
Main Administering Special Education, Volume 7 In Pursuit of Dignity and Autonomy (Advances in Educational..
The administration of public schools encompasses myriad generic issues having to do with curriculum content, instructional methodology, human resource and financial management, and of course, the guidance and counseling of students. Woven into this tapestry is the obligation to individualize educational programs to accommodate the needs of a wide and diverse student population. The needs of children may be categorized by economic, social, ethnic, physical and mental differences unique to each child and family. It is incumbent upon the public school to accommodate these differences with specially designed educational programs and to remediate any effects that may be detrimental to learning. Prominent and unique among such programs is special education, for which the program of learning is usually separately funded at both federal and state levels, but even more importantly, the learning regimen is individually calibrated to address the needs of each child determined to have a disability. Indeed, assuring children with disabilities their statutory rights constitutes a substantial segment of public school administration in the United States today. The various ramifications of the educational needs of children with disabilities and their attendant circumstances are so extensive that one book on the subject cannot be sufficient to address the magnitude and broad scope of the field. However, in this book we have attempted to discuss several of the salient issues that are of prominent concern to both school administrators and teachers. The book proceeds from the broad consideration of rights and costs to more specific issues regarding the categorization of children and the disproportionality of the various racial and ethnic groups of children who may be improperly designated as disabled. Within the context of such classifications the book discusses the screening strategies on which the rights of children with disabilities are so delicately balanced. To inappropriately classify a child may result in a form of subtle discrimination or denial of a statutory right to the provision of a particular type of educational instruction or accommodation. As is indicated throughout this book, the assessment methods by which a child's free appropriate education is determined have become a science of considerable importance. Incident to this necessity of precise assessment is the need for risk screening strategies and protocols to identify symptoms, behaviors and indications of learning disabilities requiring particular and specialized educational redress. Among issues of greatest importance is the determination not to exclude children with disabilities from the regular classroom and the mainstream of learning. Inclusion or mainstreaming is among the most contentious and perplexing issues confronting school administrators. What constitutes the legal requirements and the educational considerations of the least-restrictive environment comes directly into play in provision of an appropriate education. Beyond the all-important inclusion issue, other chapters of this book address problems of cultural and social mores that affect children with disabilities, symptoms of depression in parents of children with disabilities, maltreatment of children with disabilities, and symptoms of children who have suffered post-traumatic stress from catastrophic events in their own lives. Each chapter suggests measures to be taken by educators in identifying and redressing such matters. Policy implications for the enhancement of the effectiveness of special education programs are identified for the school administrator to consider.
institutions that wish to make photocopies for non-profit educational classroom use.
7631 5555; fax: (+44) 20 7631 5500. Other countries may have a local reprographic rights agency for payments.
or part of a chapter.
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the Publisher.
Address permissions requests to: Elsevier’s Rights Department, at the fax and e-mail addresses noted above.
drug dosages should be made.
 The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).
as they have emanated from federal Constitutional interpretations and statutes.
complex, requiring a substantial commitment of public school financial resources.
promise without provision of adequate and continuing public support.
what educational measures are best applied to remediate the situation.
performance, and helped clarify the concept of inclusion.
interventions, and defensible methods assessment and evaluation.
an urban school superintendent in Richmond, Virginia and Baltimore, Maryland.
restraints that affect the lives of children with disabilities.
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
disabled and set aside in special and different instructional arrangements.
outcomes and provide assessments of progress for students with disabilities.
be used by school administrators to effectuate such transition.
of Medical Genetics, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
leaders must be sensitive to the societal attitudes that shape institutional responses.
are drawn regarding addressing the educational needs of children with disabilities.
Partnerships Among Public Schools, Colleges and Universities, by Moira A.
new policy development that will improve the outcomes for all learners.
and politics ultimately trump the right to a free appropriate public education.
Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier Ltd.
government that have been responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities.
fully as possible, obtain autonomy and acquire freedom of thought and action.
liberties and freedoms, which bestow autonomy on each individual.
added] (Waldron, 1993, in Henkin et al., pp.157–159).
may be a limitation on his or her liberty and autonomy.
it (Dworkin, 1997, p. 199).
the normal child (Mills, 1972).
a benefit from education as a condition precedent to participation.
guarantee, however, has substantial cost implications for all levels of government.
have costs, and the draw on the public treasury limits the scope of the rights.
may fall largely on the property tax resources of the local school district budget.
absorbed by taxpayers in each community.
appropriate private setting of the state’s choice (Carter, 1993).
be paid by public school only if the public school does not provide the service.
by the cost restraints of the public treasury.
children’s needs while defending public parsimony.
education is the basic macroeconomic question.
needs and the needs of society. This is, in fact, the definition of an IEP.
goals and objectives should be established for children of each exceptionality?
Third, what kinds of educational programs are needed for those different children?
at actual costs for budgetary purposes.
to the most effective mode of instruction.
The costs of the right to a special education is a highly individualistic determination.
restrictive environment; (2) related services; and (3) separate school placement.
children with disabilities. The courts tend to give broad meaning to related services.
and difficult to quantify for budgetary purposes.
districts and to the principal source of local revenue, the property tax.
conditions of inadequate funding, but conditions of inequitable funding as well.
as required by the IEPs of all the children with disabilities in that school district.
sufficient funds to carry a reasonable part of the costs for special education.
public education (Holmes & Sunstein, p. 121).
schools for mass, public, universal education.
Alexander, K., & Salmon, R. G. (1995). Public school ﬁnance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dworkin, R. (1997). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 114 S. Ct. 361 (1993).
Johns, R. L., & Morphet, E. L. (1969). The economics and ﬁnancing of education: A systems approach.
Economy. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (1972).
343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
Public Law 94-142 (EAHCA, 1975).
Timothy W. v. Rochester School District, 875 F.2d 954 (1989).
their teacher as having mental retardation than their white counterpart” (20 U.S.C.
participation in the mainstream society” (IDEA §1400 (10)).
∗ K. G. Jan Pillai is I. Herman Stern Professor of Law, School of Law, Temple University, Pennsylvania.
future”(Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 1986 and City of Richmond v. J. A.
of awareness of the existence or extent of societal discrimination in America.
stating that the fact “is plainly true”).
classifications for the first time in the Court’s history (City of Richmond v. J. A.
Croson Company, 488 U.S. at 551, Marshall, J., dissenting).
Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company, 488 U.S. at 499).
of the States or their administration by the officers of the State” (Harris, 106 U.S.
Rehnquist majority invalidated the Violence Against Women Act (United States v.
governments from abating or ameliorating societal discrimination with legislation.
(Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. at 245) (Lawrence, 1983, pp. 831, 845).
in City of Memphis v. Greene is a telling illustration.
F.2d 395, 404 (6th Cir. 1979)).
generalizations are proved to be inaccurate in any individual case (Kimel, 528 U.S.
by the government decisionmaker” (Vance v. Bradley, 1979).
The Court’s treatment of disability discrimination is even more disheartening.
deserving close scrutiny under equal protection jurisprudence (City of Cleburne v.
Americans with Disabilities Act to discriminatory state government employers.
367–368) as mandated by the Act.
for age or disability-based discrimination that is irrational and arbitrary (see, e.g.
and proportionality to qualify as appropriate remedial legislation.
inconsequential problem” (528 U.S. at 89).
that the so-called “Bivens remedy” (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
the exercise of a right or privilege having its source in state authority,” (Lugar v.
the Court’s creditor repossession cases.
avoid the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Flagg Brothers, 436 U.S.
contribute much to the society’s quest for equality.
J., joined by White & Blackmun, J. J., concurring in the judgment).
commercial speech” (R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 423).
a group that historically has been discriminated against” (R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 394).
family as he gave to the racially bigoted intimidator.
desegregation goals “at the earliest practicable date” (Green, 391 U.S. at 438–439).
Resegregation, N. Y. Times, Jan. 27, 2003, at A24 (editorial)).
be released from court supervision. In Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.
patterns in and around the resegregated school districts.
segregated schools a factor to be taken into account in desegregation cases.
parents of black schoolchildren in the Detroit, Michigan public school system).
resegregation is a product not of state action but of private choices” (Freeman v.
Pitts, 503 U.S. at 495, 1992).
II.B supra.). In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986) and Richmond v.
extended the prohibition to the federal government.
school years to graduate-level study (Holley & Spencer, 1999, pp. 245, 247).
predicament is created by the Supreme Court’s strict-scrutiny standard.
their citizens from the consequences of societal discrimination.
circumstances dictated a more active role for them” (DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 203).
to protect the people “from each other” (DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 196).
It is not difficult to see the facial absurdity of this theory of legitimized inaction.
citizens from both affirmative and negative abuses of power by their government.
duty of protection”(Heyman, 1991, pp. 507, 571. See also Bandes, 1990, p. 2271).
sometimes verge on unconstitutional state participation in private discrimination.
(Ayres & Vars, pp. 1610–1611).
the states’ obligation to assure equality in public education has never been in doubt.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.