Venn Diagram Explanation and Legal Ramifications of EAHCA and IDEA There are many acts of legislation that have played a fundamental role in forming the basis of how we educate special needs students. Among the many are the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. These acts, being decades apart from one another, have various similarities and differences. In this writing you will find an explanation of the similarities and differences that are outlined in the Venn diagram provided, as well as an explanation of the legal ramifications of EAHCA and IDEA.
The Legal Ramifications of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and Individuals with Disabilities Education…show more content… States were encouraged to develop practices that would meet the needs of disabled students in order to receive federal funding. It was now a federal mandate that all students, regardless of disability, were to receive a free and appropriate public education (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998). On top of (FAPE) another major ramification was the requirement that parents now be informed prior to any changes being made to their child’s education. Also, the fact that Congress was now able to authorize the appropriation of a substantial amount of funds to states in order to implement and develop new services for handicapped students. The creation of this act gave courts, and court officials, the authority to recommend specific educational policies in individual cases (ENFORCING THE RIGHT TO AN 'APPROPRIATE' EDUCATION: THE EDUCATION FOR ALL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ACT OF 1975, 1979). Finally, the act held educators accountable for the education of all students, as well as accountable for receiving valuable training and preparation necessary to meet the needs of special education…show more content… This included new changes to the required components of the Individual Education Plan, or IEP, as well as how changes were to be made, and who was required to regularly attend IEP meetings (Gartin & Murdick, 2005). New changes to IDEA in 2004 outlined that special education students were to receive meaningful benefits from their programs. This meant that IEP’s must be developed based on assessment, IEP teams now had to monitor and regularly report progress, and special education teachers were required to adjust their teaching strategies if a student was failing to meet their goals (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006). Additionally, Parts C & D of IDEA had specific ramifications as well. Part C was now instrumental in recognizing very young children with disabilities. Families of children from birth to two years of age now had funding available for support and services. Section D included provisions for grants to improve education and transitional services, as well as additional support services. Finally, under IDEA, parents now had the power to challenge the IEP and services that their child was receiving. If a parent felt that the student was not receiving appropriate services this due process allowed them the authority to request changes to the treatment plan (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe,
