-
Schools received federal funds for public education; further amendment added funds specifically for students with disabilities (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Determined that people with disabilities could not be denied access to, and must be able to benefit from, programs that receive federal funds (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Link: Specifications
-
Despite previous legislation, students with disabilities were being denied access to public schools and/or an appropriate education. This act put in place Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) and defined FAPE in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
The concept of 'mainstreaming' students with disabilities was promoted by Assistant Secretary of Education Madeleine Will. However, many people at the time believed that mainstreaming would be too much of an expectation for general educators (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Required schools to provide an education for students with 'severe' disabilities (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Allowed schools to provide Educational Support Teams (ESTs) and plans for exceptional learners. Link: Specifications
-
The EAHCA was amended and became the IDEA. This act provided supplemental funding for special education, included services for children aged 3-5, and added two disability categories (Traumatic Brain Injury and Autism Spectrum Disorder). Unfortunately, low expectations persisted for students with disabilities (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Amendments required greater educator accountability; access to meaningful and measurable outcomes for goals and eligibility determinations; greater focus on parental involvement with IEPs; and thorough progress reporting.
Link: Specifications -
Determined greater educator accountability for all students with efforts to close the gap between high-performing and low-performing students. This act was controversial due to the problematic emphasis it placed on frequent high-stakes standardized testing (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Addition to IDEA with focuses on alternative models for identifying learning disabilities, research based practices, early intervention, and high-quality instruction (Susan Bruhl, 2019).
-
Determined that educational programs must be reasonably calculated to enable students to make appropriate progress in light of the students' circumstances. Students must receive access to high-quality core instruction and frequent progress monitoring, and IEP goals/objectives must change to reflect high expectations of students. This court case challenged the "de minimis standard," ruling that IEPs must give students with disabilities more than a minimal educational benefit (Andrew Lee, 2017).
-
Link: Reflection
-
Link: Reflection
