1975 Handicapped Children’s Act, before and after
By Chuck Zielin
Horace Greeley talked about the education of all children in the 19th century. With the arrival of new immigrants, state legislators passed a compulsory attendance law in support of Greeley’s thinking to “melt” the different cultures into a common denominator. Greeley’s dream appeared to have become reality — almost. Children with disabilities attended trade classes with no academic instruction or stayed home. The Supreme Court decision of 1890 allowing “separate but equal” schools mirrored this contemporary thinking.
Over time, larger school districts developed classrooms for students with disabilities in the regular education buildings. These “special education” classrooms were self-contained with no distinction between the various disabilities the children had. Dissatisfaction with this type of education gained strength in the 1940s and 1950s. When Brown vs. the Board of Education (1954) overturned the “separate but equal” school structuring and stressed equal rights and protection under the 14th Amendment, parents and advocates for students with disabilities joined public policy support for their cause.
The 1975 landmark, watershed legislation Education for All Handicapped Children Act changed the face of education for all students with disabilities. National public policy now protected students with disabilities by providing equal status with non disabled students.
The goals of the act were clear:
1. By law all services were to be available to those in need.
2. All decisions had to be fair and appropriate.
3. Management and auditing procedures had to be created.
4. Federal funds were to be provided to help states and districts implement programs.
The recommended courses of action were specific. Each disabled student was guaranteed a “free appropriate public education” in the least restrictive environments. Each student was evaluated and an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) developed with parental input. In a dispute the law mandated due process procedures and impartial hearings Finally, Congress committed to funding 40% of excess costs to help states and districts.
In the following years, Federal Court decisions clarified issues and provided directions. In 1971, Wyatt vs. Stickney settled the issue of residential state school students by guaranteeing them treatment and education. In Mills vs. Board of Education (1972) students with disabilities could not be excluded from public schools. In addition, Congress passed further legislation that expanded the act. An example was the 1976 P.L. 99-457 that mandated services begin at birth and continue to age 21.
In 1990 the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act was renamed PL 101-476 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA.) In this new legislation, the IEP included a transitional plan for life after school. Social workers and rehabilitation counselors consulted in the creation of the new plan. At this point, the law also added autism and traumatic brain injury as qualifying categories.
The 1990s saw additional refinement of the IDEA act. In the area of discipline, students with disabilities could be treated the same way as regular education students if the disability was not the cause. Procedures and timelines were added to cover infractions related to the disability. More student involvement was demanded with regular education teachers being a must on the IEP teams. Transitional plans now started at 14 years of age instead of 16. The law encouraged the use of assistive technologies such as tools to solve mobility issues experienced by the visually impaired students. Multiple assessment tools had to be used, and the state had to provide mediation services where impasses occurred. Finally, disabled students had to be included in all statewide and district testing with as many accommodations and modifications as possible.
The No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001, the 2004 Improvement Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2019 all emphasized measurable growth through multifaceted testing, using the child’s native language, and the call for highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals.
At the present time, the courts and federal legislation continue to refine procedures and provide direction. The structure of education has changed dramatically. Teacher behavior, student and parental rights, legal procedures, testing and measurement, all combine in an effort to give the disabled student “reasonable progress given the circumstances” for a free and appropriate education.
Having a 45-year career (1961-2006) in teaching and administration, I see the clear positive impact despite my experience of fulfilling overwhelming mandates. Students are attending neighborhood elementary schools, middle schools and high schools to receive direct instruction, mediate their disability and participate in mainstream regular education classes for academic growth. According to data from the Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics, 58% of students with disabilities graduated with a high school diploma in Minnesota in 2013, and that rose to 61% by 2017.
Compulsory education as perceived by Greeley in the 19th Century is now present and all-inclusive.
Chuck Zielin is a volunteer for the Anoka County Historical Society.