Education Programs: K–12 Residential Schools

In 1974, Congress enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) to support states and localities in protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families and in ensuring that the individual needs of those children are met. This landmark legislation was modified and enacted as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, and it was reauthorized in 2004. Under IDEA, there are two legally recognized rights for children with disabilities: (a) the right to a free and appropriate, public education (FAPE); and (b) the right of students with disabilities to be educated “to the maximum extent appropriate” in the general education classroom. Note, however, the IDEA distinction between “appropriate” public education and “most appropriate” education. Students with disabilities are allowed an appropriate public education but not always the most appropriate education.

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA aligned general education and special education more closely with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Currently, the federal IDEA and NCLB legislation requires school leaders to ensure that all students with disabilities included in the general education classroom and curriculum to the greatest extent possible. IDEA is essentially a funding statute, which provides that if states want to receive federal education funds, they must adopt the standards and procedures outlined in IDEA. Within IDEA the terms least restrictive environment (LRE), inclusion, and mainstreaming are often used interchangeably, even though [Page 371]each term has its own function and meaning. The LRE mandate ensures that students with disabilities are educated and integrated with their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. The LRE and the appropriateness of a school setting must be considered when determining the educational placement for a child with disabilities. By contrast, inclusion essentially refers to educating the child with a disability entirely in the general education setting with nondisabled peers. According to Mtchell Yell, “Inclusion generally connotes a more comprehensive programming than the somewhat dated term mainstreaming” (p. 311). Students with disabilities in an inclusionary classroom learn the same material and are tested to measure educational gain and improvement in the same manner as their nondisabled peers. These laws have had significant impact on the education of children who are deaf and on schools for the Deaf.

From the perspective of people who are unfamiliar with schools for the Deaf and have no knowledge of the social, emotional, and academic needs of deaf children, the schools for the Deaf are becoming obsolete and are no longer needed. The assumption is that students who are deaf would be better educated in the public schools, where they can be included with hearing peers in all aspects of schooling. In some states, schools for the Deaf are struggling to survive in the face of threats of school closures.