ABSTRACT
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 History of the Education of Disabled Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820
America’s Initial Response to Disabled Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 Merritt’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821
Federal Government Initiatives and the Civil Rights Movement . . . . . . . . . . 821 Strengthening Federal Mandates to Educate Children with Disabilities . . . . . 822
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 The Americans with Disabilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 824
Shannon’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826 Amy’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827 Jack’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 827
Select Special Education Services and the Pediatric Patient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Related Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 School Health and Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828
Garret’s Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829 Residential Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 829
Travis’ Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 Federal Initiatives in the New Millennium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 New Freedom Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 National Advocacy Groups and Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834
Federal Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835
An integral component of life-care planning for the pediatric patient is education; however, the education of children who face medical, physical, and mental health problems is governed by an extremely complex system of laws, regulations, and rules. Negotiating through this maze of laws and regulations is a difficult task for parents and the life care planner. Parents struggle with communicating their children’s unique needs to school personnel. School systems struggle with balancing the individual needs and costs of educating children with disabilities with the academic needs and sometimes the safety of other children and school personnel. Should an emotionally disturbed child who frequently disrupts the classroom environment be educated with other children or be placed in a classroom with similarly disabled children in a more restrictive setting? Should schools provide trained personnel to feed a child through a gastric tube and provide other medical services or should these children remain at home to be educated by in-home tutors?
