Special Education further Thoughts

In 1972, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia held in Mills v. Board of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866, (D.D.C. 1972), hereafter (Mills), that a school district could not exclude or otherwise deny disabled students access to a free and appropriate public education on the basis of their disability. Additionally, the court held that a school district cannot plead insufficient funding as a reason for excluding a student on the basis of disability; doing so ran contrary to the express purposes of the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 (EHA), Pub. L. 91-230, April 13 1970, 84 STAT 121 (1970). "The District of Columbia shall provide to each child of school age a free and suitable publicly supported education regardless of the degree of the child's mental, physical, or emotional disability or impairment. Furthermore, defendants shall not exclude any child resident in the District of Columbia from such publicly-supported education on the basis of a claim of insufficient resources" Mills v. Board of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866, 878 (D.D.C. 1972). The precedents that have built upon the foundations laid by the decision in Mills illuminate three currents that affect disability law, particularly in the field of education. First, the opinions serve to reinforce Roscoe Pound’s contention that the American law is cyclical in nature, see: (Pound 1982, pp 1-4). Second, they demonstrate that the legal precedents governing the education of disabled individuals are founded upon an evolving framework of models utilized to define the term disability, id: (Altman 97-98 & 100, 2001) (citations and endnotes omitted), and (Kaplan 2000). Last, the successful sustainability of special education mechanisms requires a degree of concurrent federalism., Id: Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005), Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 183 (1982); Little Rock School Dist. v. Mauney, 183 F.3d 816, 830 (CA8 1999). The EHA and its progeny the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) Pub. L. 194-142, November 29, 1975 89 STAT.773 (1975); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA), Pub L. 101-476, October 30, 1990, 104 STAT. 1142 codified as 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., (2025) provide the legal framework to ensure that the holding of theMills decision requiring a free appropriate public education be made available to students with disabilities. The mandate enshrined within the EHA and enhanced by its successors the EAHCA and the IDEA governing the development and regulation of special education regimes has been lauded as being a successful exercise in concurrent federalism in the main. Under the auspices of the IDEA, the federal government works in tandem with the individual states to create educational frameworks for the disabled. The federal government entrusts the responsibility of creating the educational systems to the states; but it enacts regulations and guidelines to ensure that the systems developed by states are consistent with the federal mandates established under auspices of the enabling legislation and relevant legal precedent. Justice O’Connor emphasized this point in the majority opinion that she authored in the case of Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). "IDEA is “frequently described as a model of ‘cooperative federalism.’” Little Rock School Dist. v. Mauney, 183 F.3d 816, 830 (CA8 1999). It “leaves to the States the primary responsibility for developing and executing educational programs for handicapped children, [but] imposes significant requirements to be followed in the discharge of that responsibility.” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 183 (1982). For example, the Act mandates cooperation and reporting between state and federal educational authorities. Participating States must certify to the Secretary of Education that they have “policies and procedures” that will effectively meet the Act’s conditions…". Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 52 (2005). The continued sustainability and viability of the IDEA, and its directives is of particular interest on a personal level not only as a concerned citizen but, as an individual born with a disability. Divesting handicapped American citizens of educational and vocational opportunities under the guise of streamlining regulations and reducing the size of government would be tantamount to consigning them to a perpetual state of involuntary servitude, in which, any hope of the security that disabled people possess would rest solely on alms granted to them by the able-bodied members of society, thereby consigning handicapped Americans to a secondary or tertiary status within the Republic. Such a shift would also make it more difficult for disabled individuals to acquire employment; and the other necessities required to achieve the promises contained in the Declaration of Independence. Americans with disabilities have the potential of becoming productive citizens possessing the capacity to assist in sustaining our society; if permitted to exercise our right to a “free and appropriate public education” as provided by law. Access to such an education endows them with the proper tools necessary to assist in the continued preservation of the Republic. Relegating people with disabilities to a lower class status is a gross injustice. Billings Learned Hand, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered an address at The Legal Aid Society's 75th anniversary celebration. In his speech Judge Hand averred that the greatest threat to the Republic and its democratic ideals is injustice. "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice” (Hand 1951). If the Republic is to endure the trials and tribulations occasioned by the current state of domestic and international affairs; we must eschew the washed-out ideas that buttress the notion that the disabled possess little that could benefit the nation. The nation must accept what they offer without hesitation, for without them the Republic will ultimately fail. The nation will thrive only when the talents of all Americans are nurtured to their greatest extent possible. Citations: Case Law: Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176; 102 S. Ct. 3034; 73 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1982) Mills v. Board of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866, 878 (D.D.C. 1972). Schaeffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49; 126 S. Ct. 528; 163 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2005). Statutory Enactments: The Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 (EHA), Pub. L. 91-230, April 13, 1970, 84 STAT 121 (1970). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA) Pub. L. 194-142, November 29, 1975, 89 STAT.773 (1975). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA), Pub L. 101-476, October 30, 1990, 104 STAT. 1142 codified as 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., (2025). Books and Articles: Altman, Barbara M. "Disability Definitions, Models, Classification Schemes, and Applications." Handbook of Disability Studies. Ed. Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman and Michael Bury. First. Vol. One. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Incorporated, 2001. One vol. 97-122. Hardcover. Hand, Billings Learned. The Spirit of Liberty: The Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand. Third Revised Expanded Edition. Edited by Irving Dillard. Vol. One. One vols. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1960. Kaplan, Deborah. "The Definition of Disability: Perspective of the Disability Community." Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 3.2 (2000): 352-364. Online. 22 July 2019. . Pound, Nathan Roscoe. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1954). Reprint of the Revised Edition. Vol. One. New Haven: Yale UP, 1982. One vol