The Hijacking of Special Education
“All qualified persons with disabilities within the jurisdiction of a school district are entitled to a free appropriate public education.”- U. S. Department of Education
Chanda Smith was a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) student with special education needs who fell through cracks in the system. In 1993, lawyers from the ACLU filed a class-action suit under her name in an attempt to ensure that students of all needs received the appropriate education to which they were entitled. The result of that suit was a consent decree, later modified, that has put the district’s delivery of special education services under the microscope of an Independent Monitor from the federal judiciary for a quarter of a century. This has forced many beneficial changes to the system, including methods to ensure that the meetings that formulate Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are held on time and systems to track the delivery of services are in place.
Unfortunately, at some point, the process was “hijacked” by those who forgot that we call the services these children receive “special education” because it is individualized for their specific needs. Instead, they pushed a one size fits all approach that demonized programs that did not meet their goal of providing services exclusively in a general education setting. Aided by politicians like Monica Garcia who concentrate on the high costs of these programs without considering the benefits, the hijackers were highly successful at forcing inclusion, even when it was not beneficial to the student. This approach resulted, among other things, in depriving parents of the option of enrolling severely disabled children at special education centers.
At the end of the year, the LAUSD will finally be released from the Chanda Smith Modified Consent Decree (MCD). As the LAUSD prepares for the transition to a new era, CONTINUE READING: The Hijacking of Special Education - Carl J. Petersen - Medium