Policy Paper

Kathryn Ross

Identity Access and Innovation

Cohen

10 October 2014

 

Education of the Handicapped Act

 

Before the Education of the Handicapped Act in 1975, students with physical disabilities did not have equal access to education. Schools did not have to accommodate for differences, and the parents of students with handicapping disabilities were responsible for all their education expenses. Due to the lack of support and accommodation, students with disabilities labeling them handicapped often lacked proper education. Their physical disabilities led many in the educational realm to believe there was “no room” for them in the school system. Students labeled handicapped were generally excluded from school entirely, or attended school in a completely separate setting than the typical students.

In some schools, students considered handicapped were placed in classrooms with typical students and received no special accommodations or help. Although these students seemed to have more access to education than the students “stuck” at home due to their disabilities, they eventually fell behind as well. Ultimately, students who identified as handicapped were brushed aside and left to look towards their parents and family for support. This Act required schools that receive federal funding to provide equal access for all students, when possible. Allowing students with handicaps to be part of the school system in an environment that promotes success, led families and students of various disabilities to seek equal treatment and access.

Amber Tatro[1], a student with spina bifida, was denied equal access from her public high school and looked towards the Education of the Handicapped Act for support. The case went to the Supreme Court in 1984, Irving Independent School District vs. Tatro. Due to spina bifida, a birth defect resulting in orthopedic and speech impairments as well as a neurogenic bladder, Tatro required extra accommodations in school. A neurogenic bladder meant Tatro was unable to use the restroom in a typical fashion and instead needed to be catheterized every 3-4 hours.  Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) requires a trained individual to insert a catheter into Tatro’s urethra and empty the bladder. Training takes less than an hour and typical people could easily be trained.

Tatro was denied access to education because her school did not see it as their role to administer CIC. Tatro required this service everyday, and during school hours, so she would not be able to attend school without proper help. The school Tatro attended received government funding and had a school nurse on staff. Other students with medical prescriptions received assistance from the nurse throughout the day. At home, Tatro’s parents, brother, and babysitter administered CIC. It did not require a practitioner, and was easily administered by the nurse.

In her case, Tatro’s CIC administration was included under the Education of the Handicapped Act. CIC is not a medical service, because it can be administered by anyone with minimal training. Furthermore, because the nurse was capable of filling other students prescriptions, administering CIC fell under their realm. Inclusion of Tatro’s disability led to controversial understandings of what accommodation looks like, understanding of various limitations in the Act, and future implications for other schools.

Tatro’s CIC administration was defined in the case as a “related service” rather than a “medical service” because the nurse can carry it through. Making distinctions between “medical services” and “related service” excuses schools from providing services that are expensive and require school funds. However, the Act also requires schools to hire trained personnel to help the students labeled handicapped. Trained personnel include speech therapists, occupational therapists, and psychologists. Tatro’s case led people to question the role of the trained personnel and the services they can administer. CIC administration requires a physician’s prescription and supervision. Individuals opposed to the case believed this was beyond the role of the staff nurse, however the court saw it similar to administering oral medication and placed Tatro’s case within the Act.

Limitations to the Act pose potential problems for students with disabilities looking to receive proper education in the future. First, related services that students may potentially need are only included under the act if the student is considered handicapped and included in special education. This means that if a handicap is present, and requires related services, but does not require special education then the school is not obligated to provided said service. Students who may benefit from a general education classroom are automatically included with special education because they need the services included in the Act to attend school. This can prevent students from reaching their potential and encourage them to lower their standards.

Today, as schools are adopting inclusive classrooms, special education is put back under the microscope and the accommodations are being reevaluated. Handicaps may no longer be divided between those requiring special education and those that don’t. The Act may lose some of its defining limitations with the emergence of inclusive classrooms and dismissal of special education, but will hopefully be able to help more students. Although this Act did not initially benefit all handicaps, and ran into many barriers as well as uncooperative schools, it promoted a system that looked towards the needs of individual students.

Another limitation of the Act is the inclusion of “necessary” for services provided to students with handicaps. If a student does not need the service during the school day, it does not have to be provided by the school. “Need” is an important word to include because it implies a service, no matter how appropriate or recommended, can be withheld by the school if the student can receive treatment before or after the school hours.

As more households have two working parents, and time spent in school increases with clubs and extra curricular activities, it is interesting to look at the expanding “school hours.” A school is not required to provide services to the children if they can receive them outside of school, but does this mean that students with medical limitations will be prevented from joining the various clubs and organizations? Furthermore, if students require the services at home, after school, parents may need to shorten their workday to administer treatment. Likewise, students in general education, without a limiting handicap, should not receive treatment or medication from the nurse if it can also wait until the school day is over.

The final limitation included in this Act, as previously mentioned, is that the school nurse rather than a trained practitioner must administer the service. With this inclusion in the Act, there are obvious limitations on the services students can receive. In Tatro’s case, the service was not a typical treatment given by nurses but could be administered by anybody, even less qualified than the school nurse. For future students, questions arise regarding the role of the nurse and their training.

            Education for the Handicapped Act has a significant impact on schools and children with handicaps, as previously mentioned, as well as their parents and classmates. The financial burden that many parents find themselves with when raising a child with a handicapping disability can be overwhelming. Adding education expenses to the medical expenses can lead families to withdraw their children from school and seek other options. Families that can afford to send their children to private schools that meet their medical needs automatically have an unfair advantage over the families that cannot. This limits the access of education for students with disabilities and prevents them from receiving equal education at their “typical” peers and their classmates with similar disabilities.

            Finally, typical students in the classroom are also affected by this act in beneficial, although considered by some to be inhibitory, ways. Students with disabilities bring diversity to the class and allow their peers to become more conscious of the needs of those around them. Some individuals opposed to the Act argue students with disabilities detract from the attention typical students would receive in the classroom and limit their available resources. Although it is true that individuals labeled as handicapped and in special education require more assistance from the school, this does not imply that the teacher will show preferential treatment. Rather, if the school provides appropriate services, with appropriately trained staff, then all students will receive the individual attention they need to be successful as students.

            This Act serves as a solid base for future rights of students with disabilities. Now that the rights of these students have been established, and brought to the forefront of civil rights activism, school systems can be placed under the spotlight again and reevaluated. Currently, schools are looking at the importance of inclusion and providing one classroom space for all students. Evaluating the rights of students with disabilities was a crucial starting block for the discussions surrounding education that are happening today.