Assignment Prompt & Instructions
See attached
– ## EDL821ThemeI.docx
**## EDL821ThemeI.docx**
Theme I-
History of Restorative Practices
Submitted to Dr.
EDL 821: Capstone I
Summer 2025
**History of Restorative Practice**
The landscape for the provision of special education and related services has evolved over the past 40 years. In the 1960s, students with disabilities had no access to the general education classroom or to the general education curriculum (Stone, 2019). They were educated separately from their general education peers and although they were granted the right to attend public schools, they did not have the same right to access the general education classroom as compared to those students without disabilities. Advocacy groups formed and pushed for lawmakers to change the way that students with disabilities accessed education in public schools and policymakers responded by enacting new federal policies and legal protections for students with disabilities throughout the country (Stone, 2019).
**Legislation**
In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and its subsequent amendments acknowledged the fact that laws specific to meeting the needs of students with disabilities were warranted, it did little to ensure them equal access to public schools (Stone, 2019). Instead, a culmination of grants and programs were created to target students with disabilities.
The 1972 class action lawsuit, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, contested Pennsylvania’s educational laws regarding the denial of disabled students’ rights to a public education. Subsequently, the court ruled on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children and determined that the state could not apply the law in a way “so as to deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training” (McGovern, 2015, p. 119.) In 1972, Mills v. the Board of Education concluded that students with disabilities should not be removed from the public-school setting and placed in an alternative setting without also ensuring that that they had access to the necessary supports and services to meet their individual needs (McGovern, 2015). As a result, students with disabilities were required to have “ a constitutionally adequate prior hearing and periodic review” of their progress to ensure that the setting is appropriate (McGovern, 2015, p.119).
The ESEA of 1965 laid the foundation for the first substantial legislation mandated for students with disabilities, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) (Public Law 94-142) law of 1975. EAHCA introduced the provision of a Free and Appropriate education (FAPE) for students with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This law made it a requirement for students with disabilities to attend school and be “educated to the maximum extent appropriate in the general education classroom” alongside their general education peers (Stone, 2019). The law took into consideration that not all students with disabilities could benefit from being in the general education classroom due to the nature and severity of their disability. As a result, policymakers included a continuum of LRE placements so that educators could make the best possible decision for where students with disabilities would receive the most educational benefit on an individual basis (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
Students with severe and profound disabilities who lacked the physical, cognitive, or behavioral capacity to be successful in the general education classroom also benefited from the EAHCA because the continuum of LRE placements included day treatment schools, long-term residential schools, and the most restrictive, home school (McGovern, 2015). EAHCA also paved the way for parents to advocate for their children’s rights by creating and implementing procedural safeguards such as impartial hearings and due process which were used as a means to resolve disagreements between parents and local educational agencies regarding the rights of students with disabilities. However, parents still had minimal opportunity to give input in the educational attainment of their children with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also a monumental component of EAHCA that ensured a plan to address students’ present levels of performance and achievement, individualized goals, accommodations, modifications, supports, and services across the continuum of placements (McGovern, 2015). The IEP was also viewed as a means of providing a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) in all educational settings from the least restrictive general education classroom to a more restrictive environment, such as a day treatment school (McGovern, 2015, p. 117). The IEP committee, which consisted of teachers, service providers, parents, and other specialists unique to each students’ individual needs, became the driving force behind all decision-making for each individual student with a disability (McGovern, 2015). Policymakers believed that these concepts would level the playing field between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities by granting them access to a menu of educational placement options based on their unique needs (Stone, 2019).
In the landmark case of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), a U. S. District court judge initially ruled that a deaf first grader who was not provided with an interpreter in her classroom was not afforded with a free and appropriate education which consequently impeded her ability to reach her maximum potential in the general education classroom (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This ruling was later affirmed by a Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The district maintained that providing the student with a hearing aid and a tutor was sufficient enough to help the student access the curriculum and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. As a result, the initial ruling was overturned. The school district was found to have provided the student with a free and appropriate public education by creating a standard for “educational benefit” all students with disabilities throughout the country (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
In 1990 the EAHCA became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In its subsequent revisions in 1997 and 2004, parents were given the right to be included the decision-making process for students with disabilities (McGovern, 2015). IDEA also paved the way for students to access the general education curriculum through the use of assistive technology and individualized accommodations and modifications provided at every level on the continuum of LRE placements including the general education classroom (Stone, 2019).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also an important component of IDEA during this time because it outlined the provision of special education and related services and became a requirement for decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis with the participation of what became known as the IEP team and approval of parents (Stone, 2019). The 13 categories of disabilities were also established that included disabilities such as autism, traumatic brain injury, and specific learning disability and its subcategories (Eunjoo et al., 2018). A developmental delay disability category was also implemented at each state’s discretion for students with cognitive, adaptive, social, physical, communicative delays under the age of nine.
Prior to 2001, students with disabilities were not a part of state and local school districts’ accountability models for academic achievement. However, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 changed the way schools in the United States approached evaluating the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Stone, 2019). States were required to create standardized measures to assess the academic achievement in core subjects across all grade levels. Additionally, alternative methods of assessments were also required for students with significant cognitive disabilities who were unable to perform at the level of those without disabilities (Stone, 2019). In 2015, President Barak Obama signed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which changed the landscape of education for schools and students throughout the country. ESSA improved the quality of instruction that all students received and gave states the autonomy to create accountability models that were tailored towards meeting the needs of students with disabilities and low-performing general education students (U. S. Department of Education, 2015).
**The Shift**
Students with disabilities being integrated into general education classrooms for purpose of having access to the general education classroom became known as mainstreaming (Donohue, & Bornman, 2015). Although mainstreaming students with disabilities into general education classrooms proved to offer many social benefits, it had minimal educational benefits for this group of learners. Educators and parents soon began to realize that simply placing students with disabilities in the general education classroom was not enough, and as a result, determined that it was necessary to also give them access to additional resources within the general education classroom setting to promote their overall success (Gilmour, 2019). Inclusive education or inclusion became widely known as a means by which students with disabilities could receive instruction in the general education or inclusion classroom while also having access to additional support and services that were needed to bridge the gap between their ability and achievement (De Beco, 2018).
According to Gilmour (2019), general education teachers in the inclusion classroom were responsible for providing instruction, accommodations, and modifications in all subject areas to all students in the classroom including exceptional learners. De Beco (2018) explained that rather than removing students with disabilities from the general education classrooms to receive instruction, special education teachers would go to their core classrooms to assist the general education teacher in providing the individualized accommodations, modifications, and specially designed instruction that their students needed while also assisting the general education teacher and general education students. Over time, various models of inclusive education were formed and implemented in an effort to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and fulfill the obligation of the laws that protected their rights to be educated with their general education counterparts (Stone, 2019).
**Summary**
Students with disabilities being integrated into general education classrooms for purpose of having access to the general education classroom became known as mainstreaming (Donohue, & Bornman, 2015).
**## EDL821ThemeI.docx**
Theme I-
History of Restorative Practices
Submitted to Dr.
EDL 821: Capstone I
Summer 2025
**History of Restorative Practice**
The landscape for the provision of special education and related services has evolved over the past 40 years. In the 1960s, students with disabilities had no access to the general education classroom or to the general education curriculum (Stone, 2019). They were educated separately from their general education peers and although they were granted the right to attend public schools, they did not have the same right to access the general education classroom as compared to those students without disabilities. Advocacy groups formed and pushed for lawmakers to change the way that students with disabilities accessed education in public schools and policymakers responded by enacting new federal policies and legal protections for students with disabilities throughout the country (Stone, 2019).
**Legislation**
In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and its subsequent amendments acknowledged the fact that laws specific to meeting the needs of students with disabilities were warranted, it did little to ensure them equal access to public schools (Stone, 2019). Instead, a culmination of grants and programs were created to target students with disabilities.
The 1972 class action lawsuit, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, contested Pennsylvania’s educational laws regarding the denial of disabled students’ rights to a public education. Subsequently, the court ruled on behalf of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children and determined that the state could not apply the law in a way “so as to deny any mentally retarded child access to a free public program of education and training” (McGovern, 2015, p. 119.) In 1972, Mills v. the Board of Education concluded that students with disabilities should not be removed from the public-school setting and placed in an alternative setting without also ensuring that that they had access to the necessary supports and services to meet their individual needs (McGovern, 2015). As a result, students with disabilities were required to have “ a constitutionally adequate prior hearing and periodic review” of their progress to ensure that the setting is appropriate (McGovern, 2015, p.119).
The ESEA of 1965 laid the foundation for the first substantial legislation mandated for students with disabilities, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) (Public Law 94-142) law of 1975. EAHCA introduced the provision of a Free and Appropriate education (FAPE) for students with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This law made it a requirement for students with disabilities to attend school and be “educated to the maximum extent appropriate in the general education classroom” alongside their general education peers (Stone, 2019). The law took into consideration that not all students with disabilities could benefit from being in the general education classroom due to the nature and severity of their disability. As a result, policymakers included a continuum of LRE placements so that educators could make the best possible decision for where students with disabilities would receive the most educational benefit on an individual basis (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
Students with severe and profound disabilities who lacked the physical, cognitive, or behavioral capacity to be successful in the general education classroom also benefited from the EAHCA because the continuum of LRE placements included day treatment schools, long-term residential schools, and the most restrictive, home school (McGovern, 2015). EAHCA also paved the way for parents to advocate for their children’s rights by creating and implementing procedural safeguards such as impartial hearings and due process which were used as a means to resolve disagreements between parents and local educational agencies regarding the rights of students with disabilities. However, parents still had minimal opportunity to give input in the educational attainment of their children with disabilities (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also a monumental component of EAHCA that ensured a plan to address students’ present levels of performance and achievement, individualized goals, accommodations, modifications, supports, and services across the continuum of placements (McGovern, 2015). The IEP was also viewed as a means of providing a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) in all educational settings from the least restrictive general education classroom to a more restrictive environment, such as a day treatment school (McGovern, 2015, p. 117). The IEP committee, which consisted of teachers, service providers, parents, and other specialists unique to each students’ individual needs, became the driving force behind all decision-making for each individual student with a disability (McGovern, 2015). Policymakers believed that these concepts would level the playing field between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities by granting them access to a menu of educational placement options based on their unique needs (Stone, 2019).
In the landmark case of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), a U. S. District court judge initially ruled that a deaf first grader who was not provided with an interpreter in her classroom was not afforded with a free and appropriate education which consequently impeded her ability to reach her maximum potential in the general education classroom (Eunjoo et al., 2018). This ruling was later affirmed by a Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The district maintained that providing the student with a hearing aid and a tutor was sufficient enough to help the student access the curriculum and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. As a result, the initial ruling was overturned. The school district was found to have provided the student with a free and appropriate public education by creating a standard for “educational benefit” all students with disabilities throughout the country (Eunjoo et al., 2018).
In 1990 the EAHCA became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In its subsequent revisions in 1997 and 2004, parents were given the right to be included the decision-making process for students with disabilities (McGovern, 2015). IDEA also paved the way for students to access the general education curriculum through the use of assistive technology and individualized accommodations and modifications provided at every level on the continuum of LRE placements including the general education classroom (Stone, 2019).
The Individualized Education Program (IEP) was also an important component of IDEA during this time because it outlined the provision of special education and related services and became a requirement for decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis with the participation of what became known as the IEP team and approval of parents (Stone, 2019). The 13 categories of disabilities were also established that included disabilities such as autism, traumatic brain injury, and specific learning disability and its subcategories (Eunjoo et al., 2018). A developmental delay disability category was also implemented at each state’s discretion for students with cognitive, adaptive, social, physical, communicative delays under the age of nine.
Prior to 2001, students with disabilities were not a part of state and local school districts’ accountability models for academic achievement. However, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 changed the way schools in the United States approached evaluating the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002; Stone, 2019). States were required to create standardized measures to assess the academic achievement in core subjects across all grade levels. Additionally, alternative methods of assessments were also required for students with significant cognitive disabilities who were unable to perform at the level of those without disabilities (Stone, 2019). In 2015, President Barak Obama signed Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which changed the landscape of education for schools and students throughout the country. ESSA improved the quality of instruction that all students received and gave states the autonomy to create accountability models that were tailored towards meeting the needs of students with disabilities and low-performing general education students (U. S. Department of Education, 2015).
**The Shift**
Students with disabilities being integrated into general education classrooms for purpose of having access to the general education classroom became known as mainstreaming (Donohue, & Bornman, 2015). Although mainstreaming students with disabilities into general education classrooms proved to offer many social benefits, it had minimal educational benefits for this group of learners. Educators and parents soon began to realize that simply placing students with disabilities in the general education classroom was not enough, and as a result, determined that it was necessary to also give them access to additional resources within the general education classroom setting to promote their overall success (Gilmour, 2019). Inclusive education or inclusion became widely known as a means by which students with disabilities could receive instruction in the general education or inclusion classroom while also having access to additional support and services that were needed to bridge the gap between their ability and achievement (De Beco, 2018).
According to Gilmour (2019), general education teachers in the inclusion classroom were responsible for providing instruction, accommodations, and modifications in all subject areas to all students in the classroom including exceptional learners. De Beco (2018) explained that rather than removing students with disabilities from the general education classrooms to receive instruction, special education teachers would go to their core classrooms to assist the general education teacher in providing the individualized accommodations, modifications, and specially designed instruction that their students needed while also assisting the general education teacher and general education students. Over time, various models of inclusive education were formed and implemented in an effort to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities and fulfill the obligation of the laws that protected their rights to be educated with their general education counterparts (Stone, 2019).
**Summary**
Students with disabilities being integrated into general education classrooms for purpose of having access to the general education classroom became known as mainstreaming (Donohue, & Bornman, 2015).