The History of Special Education: Toward Equality in American Public Schools
We have made great strides in our treatment of those with differences. As I dive deeper into these extraordinary people and the organizations that support them, I wonder about the elementary and high school years — the services and resources provided by schools, the laws mandating those services and resources, and the execution of those laws. What’s the back story? How has the history of special education evolved in this country?
The education of the disabled in the United States can be divided into two periods. The first is from colonial times until about 1970, and the second is from the early 1970s onward. One of the critical markers of this shift was the change in verbiage from “handicapped” to “disabled,” which came about due to several amendments governing special education. This shift was indicative of the notion that “handicapped” had a derogatory connotation and that “disabled” was somehow better.
The first period was characterized by novelty, ignorance, shame, exclusion, and isolation, while the second period was characterized by efficiency and regulation, inclusion and equal protection, and pridefulness. In stark contrast to over two hundred years of segregated programming provided mostly for social management purposes, the ultimate goal morphed to enable the productive inclusion of disabled students in American society. Why is this history not more readily discussed in our classrooms?
Social Management & the Urban Onslaught
The earliest approach to the education of disabled people in the United States, as categorized in the “first period” during colonial times, was less about education and more about management. Physically or developmentally disabled children whose differences were more “visible” to the world were either cared for by their families or entirely excluded from society. In 1691, New York enacted a law that included the mentally challenged among “Vagabonds and idle persons” it hoped to “discourage.” In 1773, New York passed a law that allowed the denial of settlement to those who were mentally ill or retarded, or if these people were already New York residents, compelling their families to attend to their care.
Teachers in the 1800s faced enormous class sizes, often as many as eighty. They worried mostly about students with behavioral problems that created distractions. In rapidly growing urban schools, students who struggled or lagged behind the general education classroom interfered with the efficient operation of schools. For most administrators, rapidly growing urban school systems (filled with children from a wide range of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds) provided little time and resources to care for any one child.
Most children formally identified as disabled experienced complete and permanent separation from their nondisabled schoolmates from the 1850s until well into the 1970s. This segregation was deemed efficient. Segregation also protected the disabled and non-disabled from each other. It created divides between children, generating skepticism, taunting, and a lack of compassion.
For students with developmental delays, life occurred apart from the rest of society for children living in residential institutions.
A "management approach" marked the education of the developmental delayed or behaviorally impaired.
Children engaged in mindless activity or nothing at all. They lived in disgraceful conditions, and their caregivers appeared incompetent and uncaring. Despite their exposure in the 1940s, these facilities continued to grow in number and size, and little was done to halt the overcrowding and poor staffing. These institutions were renamed “training schools” or “developmental centers” to improve their public image. Members of all socioeconomic classes acknowledged and admitted the institutionalization of family members, especially children.
Institutionalization Under Fire
The life inside the institutions of the mentally disabled was unknown to the public for generations. The photographic and narrative exposes of the mid-1900s revealed a disturbing and heartbreaking reality.
The explosion of institutionalism precipitated its dismantling in the 1970s. Horrifying documentation of these conditions came in a photographic essay: Burton Blatt and Fred Kaplan’s shocking Christmas in Purgatory: A Photographic Essay on Mental Retardation. Published in 1966, the essay depicted hundreds of children (including infants and toddlers) and adults in institutions in wretched, dehumanizing environments. Images of seriously disabled children living in states of environmental and psychological despair shell-shocked the public, triggering deinstitutionalization and normalization movements of the early 1970s.
Deaf and blind children experienced different fates, however. These institutions avoided becoming houses for children abandoned by society and kept their educational purpose for a small, capable student population. Dedicated teachers and staff, most of whom had training in the treatment of deafness and blindness, and the effective education of children with these conditions furthered the success of these schools. The clarity of the disabilities and specific instructional methods for the blind and deaf furthered this aim. The children benefited accordingly.
Landmark Cases – Disability Joins Race: Equal Protection under the law
The Brown v. Board of Education was a watershed in its decision to racially desegregate all schools in the country. Disability ultimately joined race as citizens realized that the same equal protection mandates applied to our students with disabilities.
The Supreme Court’s 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, triggered advocacy groups to turn to federal courts regarding recognizing and defining special education rights. These claims were based on the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the same legal mandates that ended “separate but equal” education based on race, as seen in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Brown ignited the onset of the civil rights movement that Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations supported.
Disability joined race and gender categories that needed equal protection under the law. The premise in Brown that segregated facilities are “inherently unequal” not only led to racially integrated schools but also to a series of court decisions expanding the rights of the disabled in school and society.
A New Lens - The Welfare of Children
A child with disabilities born in the United States in 1960 came into an America that now had a concern for his or her welfare. Even so, American society was still challenged to define appropriate services, policies, and practices meant to support the child’s education, health, and general well-being. Swept up in the civil rights movement, persons with disabilities and their advocates engaged in political, social, and educational initiatives that ultimately challenged and changes policies and practices. There was a meaningful difference in the quality of life for a child with disabilities born in 1980 compared to his counterpart born two decades earlier.
Changing Directions
President John F. Kennedy's election in 1960 marked the beginning of a turning point for government involvement in the lives of children with disabilities, initiated by love for his own sister, Rosemary.
Changes occurred in many areas. The federal government meaningfully increased its attention and resources devoted to disability. This was a dramatic shift.
There were two landmark decisions in which the idea of education for the disabled was reframed: The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia. In Pennsylvania (1972) (equal protection clause) and Mills (due process clause), the federal courts recognized that it is a fundamental right of each disabled child in the United States to go to school to receive individual educational services equal to those enjoyed by nondisabled students and not to be denied educational services without the right to contest that action through the due process of law.
After these cases, schools and public facilities became more responsive to the country's children with disabilities, their individual needs, and interests. The definition of disability experienced significant change. Medical, psychological, and educational professionals created new disability categories while redefining or eliminating older ones.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the successor to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (1975), some sweeping new understandings took root, now mandated by law.
1. Traditional categories of physical disabilities were kept intact, but now those children with processing, executive, and affective disorders, including specific learning disabilities, emotional impairment, receptive and expressive language disorders, autism, and attention disorders, were included.
2. All students can benefit from education, and no child is so disabled that services should not be provided.
3. All children are entitled to a free and appropriate education that requires education and related services (such as speech-language therapy and occupational therapy) provided at no cost to parents of the student.
4. The Individualized Education Program (or “IEP”) is a legal contract between the school and the family of a student with a disability. It provides specific instruction and services and is individualized and unique to the student’s needs.
5. The education of the student with the disability is to be provided in the least restrictive environment given that the goal of education of the student is to become a citizen within a larger society. Removing the student from the general education classroom must only be done to enable appropriate instruction.
Moving into the Future
We have moved beyond the social management of persons with disabilities and entered a space that focuses on equal protection. The ultimate goal is to integrate our students with disabilities into the larger society and allow them to have productive, meaningful lives in which they can contribute.
While the above IDEA tenets are well-established by law, unfortunately, debate and dispute still ensue over issues of school funding, resources, and the question of what exactly is an “appropriate” education for our students with disabilities. The path is forward-looking, but there is still work to be done.