EXCEPTIONALITY

Lesson Objectives
The students should be able to identify different types of discourse,
such as argumentative, descriptive, and narrative.

01 02 03
6.1 Describe 6.2 Explain key 6.3 Discuss key
exceptional students court cases relevant civil rights
and explain what to the educational legislation for
groups are rights of students individuals with
considered with disabilities. disabilities.
exceptional.
 Lesson Objectives
The students should be able to identify different types of discourse,
such as argumentative, descriptive, and narrative.

04 05 06
6.5 Cite the primary 6.6 Discuss some of the
6.4 Analyze the
issues involved in the basic needs of exceptional
perceptions of
overrepresentation and children and explain why
individuals with
underrepresentation of it is important
exceptionalities and for educators to help their
some ethnic/racial
their integration with students meet these needs.
groups in special
wider U.S. society.
education classes.
Students with Disabilities and
Students Who Are Gifted and
Talented
 Exceptional people include individuals with disabilities
and gifted individuals. This fact alone makes the subject
of exceptionality very complex. Some, particularly
persons with disabilities, have been rejected by society.
Because of their unique social and personal needs and
special interests, many exceptional people become part of
a cultural group composed of individuals with similar
exceptionalities.
Definitions of exceptional children vary from one writer to another, but Heward’s (2013, p. 7) is
typical:

Exceptional children differ from the norm (either below or above)

to such an extent
that they require an individualized program of special education
and related services to fully benefit from education. The term
exceptional children includes children who experience difficulties
in learning as well as those whose performance is so superior that
modifications in curriculum and instruction are necessary to help
them fulfill their potential.
 Process for categorizing school-age
children into special education
programs, which involves referral,
testing for eligibility, and labeling. It
mentions two ends of the continuum:
gifted and talented children with
exceptional abilities, and children with
disabilities, including those with
intellectual disabilities (previously
termed mental retardation), some of
whom may also be gifted.
 LABELLING

This content discusses the criticism surrounding the labeling process

for individuals with disabilities, noting that it can be seen as
demeaning and stigmatizing, potentially impacting opportunities
throughout their lives. It highlights how some individuals, particularly
those with learning disabilities and intellectual disabilities (ID), may
not have been identified as having disabilities before entering school.
The school environment can exacerbate their challenges, leading to a
contrast in their functioning between school and home/community
settings. Additionally, it mentions how labels can carry negative
connotations and stigmas, with research indicating that peers in
general education settings may display negative attitudes toward
classmates with intellectual disabilities.
 Visual impairment tends to evoke empathy and
sympathy from the public, while intellectual
disabilities (ID) and emotional disturbances are often
associated with lower socioeconomic status and racial
minorities, making them less socially acceptable and
more stigmatizing. Learning disabilities are generally
more acceptable, especially among middle-class
families, compared to ID. The text also touches on
the fine line between different disabilities, the
necessity of labeling for federal funding in special
education, and the potential stigma and social
isolation that labels can bring, even into adulthood
and the workforce.
 HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS

Historical Antecedents Discusses the historical treatment of individuals with

disabilities, highlighting parallels with the oppression of ethnic groups. Prior to
1800, people with intellectual disabilities were often not considered a significant
social issue, and those with severe disabilities were sometimes killed or died
early. Throughout history, attitudes towards individuals with disabilities were
influenced by superstition and economic factors, leading to their perception as
nonproductive burdens. They were frequently segregated in institutions located
far from population centers, where they often faced cruel and inhumane
treatment. With urban sprawl, many of these institutions are now closer to or
within population centers.
 LITIGATION
Litigation Discusses the involved in securing educational
rights for individuals with disabilities, noting parallels
with the struggles of ethnic minorities for education
rights. These rights were not initially granted out of
concern from educators but were instead won through
court battles. Advocates for individuals with disabilities
often utilized case law in their legal fights, relying on
published opinions of judges to establish legal
precedents. While some arguments and court decisions
supporting the rights of ethnic minorities were used, the
rights gained by disability advocates came later.
 Brown v. Board of Education
Topeka (1954) and its significance in the struggle for equal
educational rights. It contrasts this decision with the earlier Plessy v.
Ferguson case, which upheld segregation in public facilities. Brown v.
Board of Education challenged the doctrine of "separate but equal,"
highlighting the inherent inequality in segregated schools. The case
originated from Linda Brown's inability to attend a nearby school due
to her race, leading to a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of
Education. The Supreme Court's decision in Brown established that
education is a property right and overturned the segregation of
schools, setting a precedent for equal educational opportunity for
ethnic minority children. While Brown did not directly involve
children with disabilities, its principle of equal opportunity extended
to them, though it would take more time before this principle was fully
applied to children with disabilities..
 Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Children (PARC)
filed a class action suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for failing to provide publicly supported education to students with
intellectual disabilities. The plaintiffs argued that education should
encompass more than just academic experiences and that all
students with intellectual disabilities could benefit from education
and training programs. They contended that denying these
opportunities violated the state's obligation to provide free public
education. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs,
mandating that all children aged 6 to 21 with intellectual disabilities
receive a free public education, preferably in programs similar to
those provided to non-disabled peers..
 Mills v. Board of Education
(1972), a class action suit was brought before the federal District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of 18,000 out-of-school children with various
disabilities. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, mandating that the
District of Columbia schools provide publicly supported education to all
children with disabilities. Additionally, the court ordered the establishment of
due process procedural safeguards, including clear procedures for labeling,
placement, and exclusion, as well as rights to appeal, access records, and
receive written notice at all stages of the process..
LEGISLATION
In the early 1970s, following significant court victories such
as PARC and Mills, Congress began passing crucial civil
rights legislation for individuals with disabilities, modeled
after legislation for ethnic minorities. These laws
fundamentally changed how individuals with disabilities were
treated in the United States and served as a global model.
Today, it is unimaginable for schools to be inaccessible to
students in wheelchairs or for public facilities to lack
accommodations like Braille markings on elevator buttons or
ramps in stadiums. However, as recently as the mid-1970s,
many public spaces, including restaurants, had narrow aisles
and restrooms that were inaccessible to individuals in
wheelchairs.
 Section 504
In 1973, Congress enacted Section 504 of Public Law 93-112 as part of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act. This section, similar to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in programs receiving
federal financial assistance. It states that no qualified individual with a disability can be
excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under
any federally funded program or activity. This law prevents exclusion from programs
solely based on disability, but allows for justified exclusion if the disability
significantly impacts participation despite accommodations. Failure to comply risks
loss of all federal funds, even in unrelated programs within the institution.
 Public Law 94-142
In 1975, Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, was signed into law. This comprehensive legislation
provided all students with disabilities ages 3 to 21 with the following:
• A free and appropriate education
• Procedural safeguards to protect the rights of students and their
parents
• Education in the least restrictive environment
• Individualized Educational Programs
• Parental involvement in educational decisions related to their
children
 Public Law 94-142, enacted in 1975,

IDEA mandated services for children with

disabilities, requiring states and school

Funding districts to provide extensive and often costly

services. Congress aimed to fund this
mandate at 40% of the cost to educate
children with disabilities. However, funding
has not reached this target, with
appropriations increasing from $3.25 billion
in 1995 to $12.58 billion in 2009, but falling
short of the promised $28.65 billion in 2014.
 Even with over 40 years of special education legislation, there are
Post–P.L. 94-142 still many unclear aspects for children, parents, advocates, and
school district personnel. While some areas are precise, others
Litigation remain deliberately vague, leading to difficulties in interpretation
and implementation. Inadequate federal funding and staffing
shortages exacerbate compliance challenges for school districts.
Parents, aware of their children's rights to an appropriate education,
may feel betrayed by schools and resort to legal action. The lack of
a substantive definition for an "appropriate education" in the IDEA
has left this issue to the courts. In the landmark case Board of
Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley
(1982), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this issue for the first
time, ruling in favor of a student with a hearing impairment who
was provided with accommodations in a regular kindergarten class.
Laws and Funding Currently, there are potentially 3 to 6 million academically
for Gifted and gifted students in the United States, along with students
considered talented who could benefit from special educational
Talented Students programming. Despite the importance of gifted and talented
education, it is often overlooked. These individuals represent
the potential leaders, innovators, and researchers who could
enhance the quality of life by finding preventions or cures for
diseases. While there is permissive legislation allowing for
gifted and talented programming, there are no federal or state
mandates for their education, and funding is extremely limited.
In contrast, over $12 billion annually is provided through IDEA
for children with disabilities. The Javits Gifted and Talented
Students Education Act addresses some aspects of this issue,
but overall support remains insufficient.
Thank You!