A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said that the quality of a
society is determined by the quality of care that the society
provides to people with disabilities.
A U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said that the quality of a society is determined by the quality of care that the society provides to people with disabilities. It’s hard to argue with a statement like that, yet the U.S. has not yet fulfilled its responsibilities. People with disabilities still have to contend with ‘anti-sentiment’ in both financial support and social inclusion.
Prior to 1800, there was little concern about those with disabilities. Most children perished shortly after birth or through neglect and abuse. People in mountainous countries practiced a form of infanticide by taking the young to the tops of mountains and abandoning them. Coastal countries often fashioned small rafts and set them adrift. In mid-level times, they could be found as court jesters or in cages in public squares. We might assume, however, that such disregard is long in the …
but not so. It’s only been in the last 50 years that real and positive steps have been taken in this country.
From 1800 to 1960 some efforts were made. A private school movement in the U.S. provided for the blind and the deaf in residential settings. Church organizations provided some services, but more of a custodial nature. Some states provided institutions or asylums to cloister them away. The public school sector was only minimally involved, and if it was, it dealt with only better behaved children who could be managed easily. If the individual was not toiled trained or was lacking in behavioral controls, the schools would choose not to serve that individual. What agencies and the public did not know was that there a segment of the childhood population that was being hidden. Perhaps 10 percent of children were being kept in basements or attics out of fear or shame. The parent decision to hide their children was logical as there were no public school programs and society’s attitude hadn’t changed much since the middle ages.
A big change occurred after the end of World War II. Most severely injured soldier in World War I died, whereas with improved medical care, the severely damaged men survived and came home with their disabilities. Since they were heroes, people accepted their physical and mental damage. This attitude of acceptance spilled over into the communities and the public schools finally started to provide service. Many of the discharged veterans were hired as public school administrators which made the process even easier.
Various states independently established programs for some categorical disabilities in the 1960s. The federal government also got involved by enacting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This program involved funding and statements of standards as well as providing money to public school districts in the form of competitive grant awards. Such grant awards funded “pilot” projects designed to demonstrate on a small scale the efficacy of specific ideas on what was the best model of service. After six or seven years of “pilots,” the government enacted in 1975 the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA); the act incorporated much of what was learned from the various pilot projects. More recently EHA was improved with a more comprehensive IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).
Many programs have been established in the last 40 years. Children with disabilities are no longer hidden in basements, but are out in the open and going to school and being trained for the world of work. Special education classes are on the campuses of most schools. Seemingly one could comment that everything is fine, but not so.
The legislation perhaps provided a false hope to parents in that they felt that now everything would be taken care of to maximize potentials. However, there were no statements as to what the quality of service would be provided. The government reneged on its promises. It did not put money where its mouth was and there has been a shortfall of money to the districts to pay for the needed extra services that the special education student needs.
In the area of social sensitivity, maybe things are not that much different than they were in the 1800s. Districts often don’t have the resources to pay for the services and have been blaming the parents for being unreasonable in their demands. Parents are confused as to promises made and the adversarial relationships that are now commonplace in the student planning meetings. Lawyers have been brought in to help solve the problem. The districts have “unlimited” legal resources, but still have to pay for those services. If the parents’ budget allows for it, they can get services they want through legal processes … but would need to pay fees of $30,000 to $200,000.
Special education is now fraught with adversarial relationships between school and family. Certainly a parent shouldn’t have to cope with the additional disability of school-system response. Certainly the school administrations would like to do their job well, but they may have picked the wrong adversary … it’s not the parent, but unfunded federal mandates. There’s been little lobbying to correct the shortfall of funding with the feds, and it’s about time.
