Reference no: EM133607949

Question: Research an aspect of two of the principles of the IDEA, that you just learned about in the last activity. For example, in the sample analysis provided below, an aspect of the Zero Reject principle is looked at as it applies to students with significant and multiple challenges. Then, identify a court case that challenged each principle, and analyze the impact both the principle and challenges have had on special education systems today. Analysis must include

Description of the IDEA principle addressed
Description of the court case that challenged the principle
Historical perspective (prior cases that may have also challenged the principle)
Contemporary connection/impact on current practice
Sample Analysis

Principle of IDEA: Zero Reject

The Zero Reject principle states that ALL children with disabilities be provided with a free, appropriate public education, regardless of the severity of their disability or their behavior. "All" means "All".

Litigation: Timothy W. v. Rochester School District (New Hampshire) (1989)

Timothy W. v. Rochester was a court case that challenged the Zero Reject principle of IDEA. The case was about a thirteen-year-old boy named Timothy who had vision and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, frequent seizures, profound intellectual disabilities, and no obvious communication skills. The school district refused to provide him with an education, as he had essentially made no progress in a year. They felt that he could not benefit from special education and was therefore not educable denying his right to be provided a free appropriate public education under IDEA. The parents disagreed and took the school district to court.

The District Court Judge ruled that the local school district was not obligated to educate the 13-year-old boy with multiple and severe disabilities because he could not "benefit" from special education and therefore was not educable. A U. S. Appeals Court upheld the literal interpretation that IDEA requires ALL children with disabilities to be provided with a free, appropriate public education, regardless of the severity of their disability or their behavior. "All" means "All".

Historical Perspective: The principle of Zero Reject has its roots in the right to education movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s when parents fought for the rights of their children with intellectual disabilities and other significant challenges to be viewed as "able to learn" or educable. They felt that their children had as much of a right to a public education as children without disabilities and argued that though their children might learn in a different way and at a different pace, they were still capable of growth in both academics and life skills. One such landmark case in 1972, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens [PARC] v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, set the stage for the passage of a federal special education law (IDEA) in 1975. In the PARC v. Commonwealth of PA case, parents filed a class-action suit against the Commonwealth stating that their children with intellectual disabilities were being denied an education. The Commonwealth claimed that the children could not benefit from an education as they were "uneducable". The courts ordered school districts to provide a free, appropriate public education to all students with disabilities to educate students with disabilities in the same schools and basically the same programs as students without disabilities. It also put into place procedural safeguards so that students can challenge schools that do not live up to the court's orders.

Impact on Contemporary Best Practice:
Contemporary best practice is the inclusion of a student with a disability in the general education classroom. Timothy W. challenged the Zero Reject principle in IDEA i.e., that all students are entitled to FAPE. The courts upheld the intent of the Zero Reject principle so that no child would be rejected from our public schools. In essence, inclusion promotes the idea that no child should be rejected from the general education classroom because of their disability. Timothy W. and PARC v. Commonwealth of PA both set the stage for the rights of students with disabilities to receive a FAPE and to receive that education included with their typical peers.