The Defining of a Free Appropriate Public Education

I find it interesting to explore phenomena about how long-standing legislation has established a research platform that assesses and measures progress in the special education system. In a Principal journal article, Kelli J. Esteves and Shaila Rao (2008) present a timeline of court cases and legislative acts that opened classroom doors and generated the special education system. Within Esteves and Rao’s article, I found there are multiple gaps that could be confabulated by determining the role of intersectionality, but their article focuses on addressing an embedded dominant philosophy that excludes all children with disabilities and has created unequal education opportunities. My close engagement with Esteves and Rao’s article considers the historicity of “defining appropriate education,” which I pulled directly from a headline in the beginning of their analysis. Esteves and Rao’s article focuses on the concept of appropriate education, which is based on historical frameworks that influenced the passage of key special education laws.

All have the right to a public education, as granted by the Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Brown increased “funding for special education programs and training, but school districts still had the right to choose whether or not to participate in special education incentive programs throughout the mid-1960s” (2008, 1). “The Brown decision led the way to a growing understanding that all people, regardless of race, gender, or disability, have a right to a public education” (Esteves and Rao 2008, 2). Although racial segregation was addressed, Esteves and Rao paid very little attention to race on educational opportunities. Unfortunately, there was no reference to prejudice and racial hierarchy, nor a focus on the role of intersectionality when new reforms separated students according to academic achievement. The overarching purpose of their article is to offer a historical perspective so “principals can appreciate how far the field of special education has come and promote further advancement” (2008, 3).

The Rehabilitation Act (1973) assured that people with disabilities cannot be excluded from any program receiving financial assistance from the federal government; however, Esteves and Rao address how compliance was uncertain and not required of districts or institutions that did not receive federal aid. Esteves and Rao acknowledge how “[a]s late as 1975, up to half of the estimated 8 million children with disabilities in the U.S. were either being inappropriately educated or fully excluded from the public school setting” (2008, 1). Esteves and Rao address: “Something had to be done to correct this situation, and the next major phase in the evolution of special education evolution came” (2008, 1). On November 29, 1975, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed under President Gerald Ford; at the time, the act was titled the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Esteves and Rao state that IDEA established a platform that is meant to offer resources for public special education services.

“What was previously seen as a privilege is now a legal right, and the basic requirements of the original law remain the hallmarks of special education as we know it today: All children with disabilities must have an individualized education program (IEP), a free and appropriate public education, and be served in the least restrictive environment” (2008, p. 1). Esteves and Rao suggest that there is a growing understanding that all have a right to an education, as the inclusion movement is a direct response to the need for public education services. However, Esteves and Rao state that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) “focused on access to educational programs for students with disabilities, it did not address the degree of educational opportunity. Courts were left to decide what truly constitutes a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment” (2008, p. 3). Thereby, the legal notion of “appropriate” is an elusive concept and does not offer systematic structure for districts and institutions to comply with enacted amendments. This means there is a clear lack of a definition for appropriate public education has created a large disconnect and disunion in the special education system.

In an “Overview of Special Education Law and the IEP,” chapter two of the IEP Guide, Lawrence M. Siegel (2020) states that “the most difficult question to answer since the enactment of the IDEA in 1975 is what constitutes an ‘appropriate’ education and what are the duties of a school district to provide it?” (Siegel, 2020, p. 21-2) This led me to question the timeless exclusions within the special education system, and to inquire about the inevitable inequalities within differing school districts and institutions that remain today. “Appropriate does not necessarily mean the very best. For one child, an appropriate education may mean a regular class with minor support services, while a hospital placement might be appropriate for another” (Siegel, 2020, p. 21). Courts have attempted to provide more direction as to what it means to be “appropriate” education to determine what duties are questioned by each school district.

In 1982, Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowel was the first special education case in the U.S. Supreme Court (Esteves and Rao, 2008, p. 1-2; Siegel, 2020, p. 22-5). “The high court ruled that while parents were not necessarily given the right to the best possible programs for their children, students with disabilities are entitled to an IEP reasonably calculated to facilitate learning. The ruling gave lower courts a standard to follow when deciding what adds up to free and appropriate public education” (2008, p. 1-2). I noticed that the differing liberties by the high and lower courts may be a significant part in unequal and inconsistent decisions of “what adds up to free and appropriate public education” (2008, p. 2). This ambiguity of the entitlement to IEP may have resulted in significant issues related to low expectations for students with disabilities and a small amount of statewide assessments.

The elusive concept of an appropriate education is rooted in the idea of an education that “opens the door of public education;” however, the laws account for a trivial amount of educational benefits, but does require a “particular outcome” to “maximize” the potential of a child. Upon a regeneration of research categories in the special education system, Esteves and Rao explore after the turning of “handicapped” into “disabled,” IDEA responds to the need for specialized education. There is a common debate about how appropriate education can offer inclusion and accountability. “Additional amendments to IDEA in 1997 shifted the focus from providing access to public education services to providing meaningful programs for all students with disabilities” (2008, p. 1). IDEA requires special educators to report goal progress to parents and encourage parent involvement in their child’s IEP, which is determined by IDEA guidelines and specified by the IEP team.

While retracing legal milestones, Esteves and Rao explain how educators recognized the inclusion movement and responded to the need for public education services by creating a research platform. Esteves and Rao toggle around IDEA as foundational to the special education system, as a platform that allows for steady transitions into new policy changes and special education programs. During the age of coronavirus, special educators have been working to establish programs that will allow for special education services. In a newspaper issue from the East Bay Express, special educator Jennifer Madigan (2020) published an article called “Special Dilemma” where she proposes updated structures for IEPs during distant learning. As the special education system is evolving with our times, I suggest reshaping discourse on “appropriate education” would significantly increase the potential to restructure a school system for special education.

---

References

Martin, Alyson Margaret. (2010). Predictors of Burnout and Self-Efficacy Among Special Education Teachers. eBook.

Esteves, Kelli J. and Shaila Rao (2008). “The Evolution of Special Education.” Principal.

Siegel, Lawrence M. (2020). “Overview of Special Education Law and the IEP.” IEP Guide, chap 2, p. 13-68.