Introduction
Several social dynamics dictate the learning experience in many centers of education. Children are identified by their ethnic backgrounds, physique, learning aptitude, and other socio-cultural attributes. Consequently, this invokes varying attitudes and feelings among the victims of social prejudice. In extreme cases, such learners desist from school instruction, feel dejected, demonstrate truancy, and eventually drop out of school (Koretz & Hamilton, 000). Besides, others who brace the challenge tend to isolate themselves for feeling inferior to their counterparts. In some situations, children with perceived inadequacies have been deliberately excluded from learning institutions or barred from taking part in certain interschool activities for what is misconstrued as safeguarding the school or class image.
In 1893, the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted the dismissal of a student from a public learning institution citing dismal academic performance. This ruling was relied upon as defense against many forms of discrimination in many schools, especially in state-owned learning centers. It was not until 1954, in the petition filed by Brown v Board of Education where it was successfully argued that everyone was entitled to the right to education without discrimination. Further, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 to agitate for equal and fair access to education for all (Wright, 2010). This was later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), driven by the need for free and appropriate education within the least restrictive environment for all. This study will explore the policy in terms of the progress made and highlight any areas of improvement.
Key Provisions of the Policy
Free Appropriate Public Education
The Act provides that every child has an equal right to free appropriate public education. To this effect, the government is tasked with making all necessary adjustments to ensure that the available form of education meets the ultimate needs of all children. In the case of children living with disability, the policy advocates for special education (Hale et al., 2004). This implies that the education content should be reviewed and restructured in a way that appeals to the child’s unique needs and sets them ready to advance to higher levels of education, prepare them for employment opportunities and responsibilities, and make them as independent as possible. Similarly, schools should ensure that learners gain meaningful education within the recommended timelines. This means the instructors must help the students aim higher while setting their education goals, watch their progress, and ensure the competent transition from one level to another. Local school boards are thus expected to liaise with public schools to ensure this is met. Any of the pertinent parties’ apparent breach of this requirement is legally enforceable.
Appropriate Evaluation
This provision requires schools to use appropriate means to assess a child’s ability and respond to it most efficiently. A team of knowledgeable personnel must evaluate any child suspected of having any form of incapacitation by utilizing the recommended sound evaluation tools and procedures to determine their specific challenges (Hale et al., 2004). However, children must be exempted from recurrent unnecessary evaluation tests. Instead, all suspected cases must be substantiated to improve the future learning experience and roles in society. Also, the ultimate purpose of any needs evaluation test should revolve around coming up with lasting solutions and recommendations on how to improve their learning experience. Failure to seek possible counter-measures to handle the social challenges affecting an individual is considered detrimental and uncalled for since it only invokes hatred and panic, causing a negative implication on their perception. Typically, such children feel emotionally drained and unlikely to have a sense of belonging.
Individualized Education Plan
This IDEA segment requires that free access to public education for learners be tailor-made to meet their unique needs and preferences. As a result, the child’s yearly goals and objectives should be clearly outlined, current levels of education, benchmarking goals, and all relevant learning aids should be provided. Besides, a comprehensive individualized education plan should bear detailed explanations of the learner’s participation in routine classroom activities and be accompanied with possible causes for such (Hale et al., 2004). This means that both parents and teachers are tasked with evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, available opportunities, and any possible risks. A collaborative approach is fundamental since different children portray varying behaviors and attitudes to teachers and turn the tables under their parents’ watch. A personalized plan ensures that reasonable attention is extended to each child and that no one feels neglected or left out.
Least Restrictive Environment
Their immediate surroundings greatly determine a child’s learning experience. It is vital to align such learners with shared ideas and opinions on various subjects of interest. The Act stresses that it is essential to grant autonomy and let a child experiment and participate in crafting their objectives to meet their full potential to make a difference within their spaces of influence (Yell & Bateman, 2019). Unique mechanisms such as classroom modification with necessary aids, supplemental equipment, and adopting alternative instructional methods like the braille are all essential in creating an enabling learning environment. Special individualized education plan teams are put in charge of determining the effectiveness of the general classroom set up for a special needs student. In case of any shortcomings, they are then expected to suggest possible modifications that will attain the least restrictive environment for learning. Creating an engaging and inclusive learning environment improves a student’s attitude towards education.
Parent Participation
Parents are an indispensable element in a child’s educational ambitions. Parental care and involvement become even more intrinsic when dealing with children living with disabilities. IDEA provides that the parent or guardian of such a child must be part of critical decisions affecting their child’s learning experience (Yell & Bateman, 2019). Therefore, parents’ contributions and observations must be given priority and be directly involved in all special committees and teams where critical decisions are made. Further, these provisions require that the parents be notified of any planned activity such as evaluation tests, special learning tools, the introduction of new methods of instruction, and be invited to all meetings where the placement of their child is expected to be deliberated. It is important to note that parents reserve the right to either consent to or decline further evaluation on their child under this item. They are given an equal right both a decision-maker and a participant in ensuring effective learning for their child.
Procedural Safeguards
This directive ensures a harmonious approach to issues that arise between parents of a disabled child and the institution of learning to which their child’s education needs have been entrusted. Disputes regarding placement or general conduct or experience of the child must be handled objectively and be aimed at improving the child’s attitude towards school (Yell & Bateman, 2019). However, this provision must be approached with utmost caution since either of the parties can abuse its privileges. For instance, special needs children are equally expected to abide by specific rules and protocols that govern their conduct while in school. Similarly, teachers are expected to understand how to approach such cases to minimize room for altercations because natural forces beyond their control have compromised the learner’s response to instruction. The parents can demand to be issued with all records pertaining to their child, be issued with notices of planned meetings in advance, and obtain an independent educational evaluation for deliberations at such meetings (Yell & Bateman, 2019). If one is not satisfied, they have the right to approach the institution and seek lasting solutions for their various concerns.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
|
Weaknesses
|
Opportunities
|
Threats
|
Achievements of IDEA
Since the Act’s inception, there has been an improved attitude and willingness to embrace education. A report from a fact-finding mission conducted in 2013-2014 revealed an overwhelming 6.5 million special needs students being served under the IDEA program across the United States. The critical cases addressed under the program included hearing impairments, speech and language problems, autism, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder. Besides, the data revealed that an estimated 14 percent of learners enrolled in public learning institutions constitute those with learning disabilities. Besides, a whopping 95 percent of this unique group attend public schools; hence any modifications and improvements suggested in the Act impact them directly (Francisco et al., 2020). The guidelines underpinned in the Act thus make it possible for these students to attain their ultimate potential by directly appealing to their educational needs. Without this policy, likely, the majority of these students would not access their right to education.
Section C of the Act emphasizes that preschoolers who portray possible risks of exposure to different kinds of disability require rapid intervention mechanisms as early as possible. Consequently, IDEA holds that this particular category of children in elementary school is given early intervention-free. Early detection and intervention of such disorders have proved instrumental in containing them before advancing into critical stages. Early intervention has promoted faster independence of the victim and enhanced acceptance of their condition, making them open for suggestions towards self-improvement. A survey conducted by the US Department of Education indicated a significant 20% improvement in score from 2000 to 2009 (Francisco et al., 2020). This indicates that the new model has proved effective and centered towards improving students’ overall learning experience irrespective of their perceived abilities. Therefore, IDEA has effectively helped flatten the variance between an average child and that with special needs and thus reduce any possible chances of discrimination and exclusion that were previously considered barriers in the quest for equal education opportunities. This ensures fair distribution of economic opportunities for all irrespective of their backgrounds.
Lastly, chances of securing admission to an institution were previously limited. As a result, parents would struggle or even incur additional costs before landing consideration for children with special needs. However, with the enforcement of new provisions, these barriers have since been vacated. Despite the relative lapse in the consistency and performance of special needs learners relative to their regular counterparts, they are confident of pursuing their educational goals to their best potential. Statistics from a survey conducted in 2013 illustrated that a host majority of disabled learners advanced to regular diplomas (Francisco et al., 2020). Besides, cases of dropout and truancy have significantly reduced owing to the new guidelines. The Act has thus revealed more learning opportunities to this particular group of learners than seen before. A report compiled in 2005 showed that senior learners with a disability who enrolled in college had since risen to an estimated 31.5%, making it the highest since the inception of IDEA. Thus, the Act has revolutionized the learning experience of this particular group in terms of access to quality education.
Challenges
Despite the success and achievements made so far, particular challenges face the effective implementation of the Act. For instance, the global rollout of digital learning procedures has left multiple glaring gaps regarding children with learning disabilities. This was made more apparent during the peak of COVID-19. The majority of remote learning tools, such as zoom, entailed visual demonstrations. This became quite challenging when dealing with students suffering from visual impairments. This category resented the available educational tools and felt secluded from active participation in learning by the new programs.
Besides, learning from home required special modifications to ensure that learners with disability were adequately addressed in virtual learning. This comes at an extra cost on the part of the parent. It was thus difficult to scale this objective due to economic inequalities. Also, the negative impact of the pandemic on family streams of income further worsened the situation since the focus was on survival (Francisco et al., 2020). Such learners were severely affected as compared to those with normal learning abilities. Lastly, the challenge of subjective human weakness where both parents and teachers neglect their express responsibilities to optimally attend to the needs of these students has harmed their learning experience. Complaints of breaking minimum expectations and lack of collaboration by either of the parties still prevail in many learning environments.
Recommendations
Certain possible considerations could be utilized to enhance the implementation of this policy. Firstly, there is a need for community sensitization to ensure that all parties relevant fully comprehend the contents of the Act as previously outlined in this paper. The basic understanding of duties and obligations provided for in the study ensures that each party fully plays its duties and responsibilities (Crosson-Tower, 2017). Besides, the possession of useful information makes it easier for one to hold the other accountable in the event that their rights appear to have been infringed.
Secondly, the Act should be reviewed to accommodate current issues concerning inclusivity in education. For example, the Act appears to thrust the teachers’ responsibility of nurturing special needs students. Therefore, it is crucial to legislate equal privileges and priority to teachers handling this special category of learners (Crosson-Tower, 2017). This is because of the heavy psychological burden of the reduced response to an instruction by disabled students relative to those with standard learning capabilities. For instance, part of the provisions should be conducting special training and development explicitly targeting these teachers. This will help them strike a positive balance between their personal goals and obligations and their professional duties (Crosson-Tower, 2017). Besides, parents should be empowered not to act as watchdogs to monitor teachers but instead take full responsibility to ensure that educators have an easy time managing their children’s educational needs. The government, through the US Department of Education, conversely, should provide adequate funding and undertake audit programs to assess the effectiveness and any challenges arising from this policy.
Conclusion
Inclusive learning is one of the crucial tools that can be relied upon in ensuring the protection of the welfare of children. While inclusivity is a wide subject, the IDEA policy narrows it down to the response to students with disabilities. It emphasizes the right to education for all, irrespective of their mental or physical orientation. Due to the inherent shortcomings among disabled persons, their response to instruction is affected largely relative to that of an average child. Therefore, the Act provides that the state should ensure adequate classroom modifications to create the least restrictive learning environment and optimize the experience of all students. Since its inception, the Act has improved the score and percentage of students enrolled in educational institutions. This policy aims to ensure that the learners become as independent as possible to take charge of their objectives in life. However, the policy experiences certain challenges, such as technological implications and inadequate funding. It is, therefore, prudent that necessary action for improvement be taken to enhance the Act and ensure that it attains the set objectives. Parents are equally obliged to take an active role in their children’s education.
References
Crosson-Tower, C. (2017). Exploring Child Welfare: A Practice Perspective. Pearson.
https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Crosson-Tower-Exploring-Child-Welfare-A-Practice-Perspective-with-Enhanced-Pearson-e-Text-Access-Card-Package-7th-Edition/PGM328203.html
Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., & Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and special education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 238.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/10/9/238
Hale, J. B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., & Kavale, K. A. (2004). Specific learning disability classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas. The School Psychologist, 58(1), 6-13.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.1701&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 255-272.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/01623737022003255
Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2019). Free appropriate public education and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School System (2017): Implications for personnel preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 6-17.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0888406417754239
Wright, K. (2010). ‘Count us in’–achieving inclusion in Scottish schools: an analysis of policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(2), 153-164.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603110802504184
write