Disability Then and Now

Disability Then and Now
Student’s Name
Institution
Disability Then and Now
While America has made significant strides towards the inclusion of students with disabilities, there is still a long way to go to attain full inclusion. A major event in the history of Disability Rights Movement occurred in 1951 when a member of the nurse’s office at Carlstadt, a number one public school in New Jersey, wrote a letter to “Parent Groups for Retarded Children” (National Museum of American History, n.d.). The sender complains about a mother who had demanded that her two children with intellectual disabilities receive public education. The mother had refused to enroll the 6 and 12-year-old children in a state institution. A key part of the letter notes that the mother “…apparently has been unable to accept the fact that her children cannot be taught in the Public or Trade schools” (Leiter, 2012, p. 15). The letter also asks the receiver if they have any literature that may help the mother accept her problem. It is evident that parents that had children with disabilities were not accorded support if they wanted their children to receive education in public schools. Therefore, when such parents refused the institutionalization of their children, it is apparent they had to carry out education on their own.
The modern legal environment supports significantly the inclusion of children with disabilities in the public education system. A recent event that embodies the legal system’s support for inclusion is the action by the U.S. Court of Appeals that upheld the decision by a lower court which determined that a school district had violated education rights of a teenager with Down syndrome (United States Court of Appeals, 2018). In the case, the parents of teenage Luka opposed a decision by a school district to move their child from a mainstream classroom to a segregated classroom that had other children with disabilities. The parents decided to transfer Luka to a private school and went on to sue the school district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It took years of litigation and dispute for the district court to rule that the decision of the school district violated IDEA as it was “more restrictive than necessary” (United States Court of Appeals, 2018). The district court also decided that the placement of Luka in private school was not consistent with IDEA and thus they would not be reimbursed on the associated education cost. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the decision of the district court, noting that it was a violation of IDEA for the school to place Luka in a segregated clas...