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 94-142
• 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