Jeffrey Gencarelli

SPED Background As the graph on the right depicts, starting with the 1950’s there was a widespread deinstitutionalization of individuals with mental disorders which departed from mental institutions. In the 1970’s however you are really able to see the rapid decline and reliance on mental facilities. What then is the cause for this change?

CASE LAW BATTLES  Brown v. Board of Education  PARC v. Commonwealth of PA ▪ Free and public education  Mills v. Board of Education ▪ Due processing NEW LEGISLATION – Section 504 Prohibits exclusion from programs solely on the basis of disability – Public Law FAPE and LRE Protection of rights of students and parents Parental involvement Nonbiased evaluations IEPs Nearly 2 million children did not receive a public education prior to this law.

 Incorrect SPED placement has been and still is of major educational concern.  Biased assessments of children based on race, family income and gender have confounded the evaluation system which have created drastic overrepresentation and underrepresentation of certain groups of SPED children. ▪ Large overrepresentation of male black students in SPED  Positive Teaching in SPED children  In order to properly assist SPED children in the classroom there should be an attention to detail for each individual child. Children’s records, family members and the child him or herself can provide recommendations for the best way to assist the child.  Teacher’s can help students improve their self-identity by properly assisting them while encouraging self-improvement.

 Inclusion stems from the political movement of normalization  Normalization is defined as “making available to all persons with disabilities or handicaps to or indeed the same as regular circumstances and ways for life” (Wolfensberger, 2002)  Inclusion  Allowing students with disabilities to learn in general education classes

 Federal Law states that SPED students are not entitled by law to be apart of general education classes.  Partial inclusion- involves the placement of students with lower levels of MMR and MR into general classrooms whenever possible  Full inclusion- is the insertion of students with disabilities into general education entirely

 Administrative bias.  Many times individuals who could adapt and benefit from general education are left out due to apathy and simplicity  It is easier to keep SPED students out of the classroom but is it right?

FOR  Immoral Segregation  Education should be in the least restrictive environment  The government is responsible for providing appropriate funding AGAINST  Full inclusion is overkill  Some students lack cognitive ability and will distract from others  Not enough money!

 There is none; unfortunately there is no clear solution but as future teachers it is our responsibility to not buy into the labeling bias.  Children with disabilities are more alike than unlike “normal children”

 A Teacher's experience with inclusion A Teacher's experience with inclusion