By on
Fifty years ago, millions of children with disabilities were excluded from public education. Today, how far have we come—and where do we go next?
On November 29, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) into law. As we observe fifty years of special education law in the United States, it is a time to reflect on the impact, the trends, and the future of special education. Now, more than twenty years after the IDEA’s last reauthorization, special education is again undergoing changes.
Coming soon after the enactment of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the EHA (or PL 94-142, as many called the law), set the stage for special education as we know it today. With the Supreme Court weighing in on the standard for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the Rowley decision in 1982, schools throughout America began to make one more leap toward meeting the call of public education for all students. In more recent years, with decisions like Endrew F. clarifying the standard for a free appropriate public education, the opportunities and responsibilities for the education of students with disabilities is steadfast as a primary responsibility for schools, while also a frequent source of legal questions and disputes.
While Congress has never come close to meeting the funding promised and anticipated for special education, the IDEA has fundamentally reshaped the operations of school districts over the decades. Special education remains one of the most highly regulated aspects of school operations, with federal statutes, federal regulations, state law, state regulations, and myriad guidance documents all dictating the actions of school personnel who support students with disabilities. Moreover, the IDEA is one of the most-litigated federal statutes, resulting in hundreds of court decisions throughout the country each year.
Impact of the IDEA
As school districts were addressing desegregation in the mid 1970s, the addition of legal requirements to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities allows schools to reach closer to the fundamental mission of public education. At the same time, school districts were not equipped for teaching students with disabilities, and compliance led to schools generating new systems and new expertise for teaching and learning. New positions, innovative programs, and accessible facilities created opportunities not only for structures and personnel to meet the requirements of the IDEA, but it also fostered an era of rethinking teaching to meet the needs of a more diverse set of learners.
Ahead of, and important to the substance of, the last reauthorization of the IDEA in 2004, the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education identified both the progress and the continuing challenges associated with educating students with disabilities. The Commission noted: “Although it is true that special education has created a base of civil rights and legal protections, children with disabilities remain those most at risk of being left behind. The facts create an urgency for reform that few can deny.”
And from the school attorney’s perspective in particular, the IDEA created new legal hurdles and complex systems for compliance. Due process hearings have evolved into formal, technical legal proceedings, with experts on both sides, high-stakes decisions, and frequent appeals to court. By 2025, there are over fifty federal appellate court decisions under the IDEA annually – let alone the hundreds of lower court decisions as well. The many procedural requirements under the IDEA are a constant legal compliance concern, with ever-changing state-level rules, shifts in guidance, and impacts from court interpretations. This system of procedural safeguards, and the rights and responsibilities it undergirds, is unlike any other aspect of the legal system, and is a unique manner of decision-making and dispute resolution unlike any other aspect of school operations – or any other sector. These legal complexities have shaped not only compliance but also the evolution of educational practices.
Read more
