Preparing to Learn

Special Education Responsibilities, Rights, and Ethics

Before discussing key legal and ethical responsibilities for teachers when working with students receiving special education services, check to see what you already know, what you may need to unlearn, and what you might be interested in exploring further.

As the previous chapter indicated, teachers have several legal and ethical responsibilities that guide their interactions with all students. These responsibilities are crucial to setting up a healthy and effective environment for students receiving special education services. This section focuses on legal and ethical responsibilities specific to special education.

Before identifying the key federal laws that inform state, district, and individual educators’ responsibilities in special education, it is important to understand federal, state, and district governance levels and oversight types.

Legal Responsibilities and Rights in Special Education

Key Laws^[1]

Rehabilitation Act

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is an important law in special education because it established a definition of disability, which was “persons with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities” (Office for Civil Rights, 2006). This law makes disability-related discrimination by any institution that receives public funding illegal. It also established the U.S. Access Board, a federal agency that “promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards.”(About the U.S. Access Board).

Section 504

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act specifically applies to schools, including higher education institutions. Generally speaking, educators implement the protections of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by providing accommodations that allow students with disabilities to access curricular materials and physical spaces fully. In most cases, accommodations provided through Section 504 are specific to the needs of the individual student and are documented in a 504 plan.^[2]

For more information about 504 Plans, explore “What is a 504 Plan” by the non-profit advocacy group Understood. Examples include providing technology with speech-to-text features for a student with physical impairments that significantly impact writing or a chair with armrests for a student who needs additional support for core stability.

Section 508

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act has become increasingly important in public education, as it “requires agencies to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to electronic information and data comparable to those who do not have disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency” (Accessibility Statement). In recent years, and especially since the COVID-19 pandemic began, educators have increasingly provided electronic resources for students and their families, either as supplements to physical resources or as primary curricular materials. Electronic resources can help educators meet Section 504 standards and are easily accessed regardless of location; they are also both familiar to students and consistent with the ways that many people navigate the world in the present day. In recognition of the increasing importance of technology in providing equal access to public spaces and services, Congress passed a different-but-complementary law, the Technology-Related Assistance Act of 1988, later revising its name to the Assistive Technology Act. As of its latest revision in 2004, the “Tech Act” (as it’s often called) provides federal funding to states so that they can offer their residents equipment that can “increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities”(29 U.S. Code 3002).

However, not all electronic materials are accessible, and educators who distribute materials that cannot be used with various assistive technologies (like screen readers) are in danger of not meeting accessibility standards. What exactly are those standards? Section 508 does have its own specific standards (Information and Communication Technology: Revised 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines), but they reference broader, more commonly used global accessibility standards called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Educators are not legally required to ensure that every single electronic resource they use meets these standards, but they are required to ensure that every student has full and equivalent access to the same materials. This last sentence will be unpacked in more detail, along with the concept of “undue burden,” as we review an educator’s ethical responsibilities in special education below.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA is a very broad law originally enacted in 1990 that outlaws discrimination based on disability. Title II specifically addresses all “public entities,” including school districts, and is focused on public spaces rather than public services. In combination with Title III, Title II of the ADA specifies protections in all public facilities other than churches and private clubs (Smith, 2001).

The ADA builds on the Rehabilitation Act in a few ways, relying on entities like the Access Board established by the Rehabilitation Act to establish standards and monitor compliance (Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulations, 2012). In school settings, ADA supports are often proactively added to public spaces and materials to provide accessibility for all. Examples include closed captioning of videos, curb cuts, ramps or elevators, and fire alarms that provide both auditory and visual alerts. As of February 2022, the Department of Justice has explicitly defined websites as places of “public accommodation,” further reinforcing the expectation that electronic resources provided by public entities, including schools, must be accessible (Thomson Reuters, 2022).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

The IDEA first became a law in 1990. In 2004, an amendment to the IDEA made it the “Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act,” or IDEIA, but it is common practice to continue referencing the law with the acronym IDEA.^[3] Unlike the Rehabilitation Act and ADA, the IDEA has a more specific definition of disability. An individual must have characteristics that align with one or more of the 13 eligibility categories, and those characteristics must have a negative impact on learning. A specific evaluation process determines if a student qualifies for services under the IDEA.

Parts of the IDEA

Procedural Safeguards

Procedural safeguards are federal regulations that are in place to protect the parents of children with disabilities and children with disabilities. The Center for Parent Information and Resources explains, “These safeguards . . . give families and school systems several mechanisms by which to resolve their disputes” (Parental Rights under IDEA). Students and the parents of students with Individualized Education Programs or who are being evaluated for special education services are afforded procedural safeguards under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

According to Understood, some examples of procedural safeguards include:

• Procedural safeguards notice
• Parent participation
• Access to educational records
• Confidentiality of information
• Informed consent (or parental consent)
• Prior written notice (10 key procedural safeguards in IDEA)

Additionally, if a parent doesn’t agree with the special education services their child is being provided, they can file a written complaint to a third party. This is called due process and allows parents to challenge how their child is supported procedurally and substantively.

To ensure free appropriate public education, FAPE, each child receiving special education services has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) based on their needs. Children’s needs are based on their Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) and to what extent their disability affects their participation in general education. It is important to note that students with disabilities receive instruction/content at their grade level, with accommodations and modifications as needed. The requirements of the IEP bind the general education teacher of a student with special education needs. The teacher is responsible for knowing the goals of the student’s IEP and being an active member of the IEP team. Consequences for not following the IEP as the general education teacher can include a lawsuit.^[4]

The IDEA will be covered in greater depth in subsequent modules, as its amended forms (particularly the 2004 amendment) prompted a significant shift in special education practices and mindset in American public education. As you continue to explore the IDEA in greater depth, you may find it helpful to reference IDEA: Topic Areas for definitions and related resources.

Do Private Schools Have to Comply with the IDEA?

Legal Rights

Special education law does more than list requirements and responsibilities; it also details legal rights for students, parents, and educators.

Student Rights

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)

The concept that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is a civil right for all students is rooted in several laws and court decisions, all of which point back to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The IDEA’s predecessor, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, first used the term, requiring states to provide students with disabilities the same educational access and quality as all students in order to receive federal education funding. In the nearly five decades since that law was enacted, FAPE has been interpreted by court decisions and subsequent laws, especially the IDEA. One of the important functions of an IEP is to provide a personalized description of what support an individual student needs to achieve FAPE. This concept will be covered in greater detail in subsequent modules.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

The Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is a safeguard mandated by IDEA. The Least Restrictive Environment requirement also originated in the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, with the IDEA building on the concept at its inception in 1990. LRE requires students to be educated with peers who are not identified as having special education needs. Removing students with special education needs from the general education classroom with their peers can only occur when the severity of their disability affects advancement in the general education classroom. A meeting of the IEP team must decide and agree on the change of placement.

Discrimination

Harassment

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protects students from experiencing disability discrimination in public schools. While this includes the student’s right to FAPE and LRE, it also means that students with disabilities have the right to participate in extracurricular activities and learn in an environment free of harassment or bullying from peers. According to the National Education Association (NEA), “When a school district knows or reasonably should know of possible disability-based harassment, it must take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate what occurred. If harassment did occur, the school district must take prompt and effective steps to end the harassment and prevent the harassment from recurring” (National Education Association, 2019).

Disproportionality^[5]

In the context of IDEA, the nation’s special education law, disproportionality refers to findings that students from certain racial and ethnic groups may have a greater (or lesser) likely than students from other groups of:
• being identified as a child with a disability who needs special education and related services;
• being identified as having a particular disability (e.g., autism, intellectual disabilities);
• receiving their special education services in settings that are more separated or restrictive;
• receiving harsher, more exclusionary discipline, including suspension and expulsion.

When specific racial or ethnic groups are more likely (or less likely) than others to have any of these outcomes, it is cause for concern and deeper investigation. In some cases, the percentage of a racial or ethnic group in special education may be less than what is found in the student minority population in general. In this case, the group may be described as underrepresented in special education. In contrast, when a specific racial or ethnic group is represented in special education at a greater rate than the student minority population in general, that group is said to be overrepresented. If you are interested in learning more about the race and ethnicity of students served under the IDEA, check out this resource created by the Office of Special Education Programs.

Parental Rights

Parents have several rights detailed in the IDEA: confidentiality, record access and review, consent to evaluation and services, and dispute resolution. However, the most foundational parental right is that of the parent/caregiver as an equal stakeholder in the IEP team. This includes the right to participate in all meetings concerning their child with disabilities. A meeting can only be held with the participation of the parent/caregiver. Parents/caregivers also have the right to Prior Written Notice (PWN) when the school proposes any changes in the IEP, evaluation, or placement of the child. The PWN includes the right to examine all educational records of their child. It is also the right of the parent/caregiver to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child if they question the outcomes or procedures of the school.

Educator Rights

Educators have rights under Section 504 as well! They are protected from retaliation in their advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities, specifically as whistle-blowers when adherence to special education law is not properly occurring in public school learning environments. It is important to note that ensuring the right for educators to be free of retaliation for advocacy requires the educator to work with federal regulatory bodies; to read more about your rights as an educator on this front, you can explore the information and resources available to you through professional organizations like the NEA (National Education Association, 2019).

Special Education Abbreviations

Ethical Responsibilities

As indicated in the section focused on ethical responsibilities for all educators, teachers have a responsibility to students to teach and support them ethically. It is so important that many national organizations have established codes of ethics to guide professional educators in their daily practice. One example is the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), which has its own Code of Ethics for Special Education Professionals.

It is important to note that there is a difference between what educators are legally required to do and what is ethically important in special education, although often the language within the law is adjusted in ways that can substantively inform ethical choices. An example of this is Rosa's Law, which was passed in 2010 and updated codified terminology used in official special education documents, practices, and services. One of the terms that was formally removed from federal law was the term mental retardation; it was replaced with the less offensive term intellectual disability.

As the video below explains, words matter; types of personal bias relating to special education may include outdated terminology or the idea that students who qualify for special education are not intelligent. It is essential to check the use of outdated and negative terms regarding the type of disability defining a special education student.

One way to ensure you respect your student’s identities is to use people-first language, as this type of language is preferred when referring to people with disabilities. People-first language refers to using the person’s name first as a descriptor, followed by the disability or special need. For example, rather than referring to Rosa as an “intellectually disabled woman,” Rosa would be referred to as “Rosa, a person who has an intellectual disability.” That said, some people may prefer that their disability is listed first, so it is best to check rather than assume. The identification by disability is noted particularly in the autism community. Some people prefer “individuals with autism” to “autistic individuals.” The debate comes from whether disability is considered a part of the person’s identity or whether the disability is secondary to the person considered (Woodridge, 2023).

What other ways do the laws most central to special education point educators toward desirable, effective, ethical practices? The explicit protections for educator advocacy in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the detailed standards for accessibility provided in Sections 504 and 508, and the approach of the PLAAF in IEPs as indicated in the IDEA help us proactively identify ethical practices worth developing as educators.

Advocacy

As we learned when we explored educator rights, teacher advocacy for students receiving special education services is protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This implies an ethical responsibility: educators should advocate for students with disabilities. But advocacy requires understanding. When a student in the classroom has a disability, especially one that is rare or not commonly understood, it is the teacher’s responsibility to learn more about it. Just as it is the teacher’s responsibility to know the curriculum, the teacher must also know the students. While studying to learn more about a disability or disorder, use current and vetted materials. Check with reputable sources, research through medical and educational organizations, and speak with the parents.

Whether you are a classroom teacher or a special education teacher, you are a crucial part of a student’s IEP team. While parents and other IEP team members certainly contribute key information and care in developing an individualized plan for a student’s success in their educational journey, you have a long-term (typically, at least an academic school year) relationship with the student in an environment where parents, administrators, and additional team members are usually not present.  You are ethically responsible for knowing what the student needs and supporting them to receive it, ensuring your student receives FAPE in the LRE.

Accessibility

As we learned from our exploration of the Rehabilitation Act, schools are legally required to provide equal access to curricular materials to students with documented disabilities. However, that sneaky undue burden concept is tacked onto the end of the requirement. All too often, when students and their families struggle to get school districts to provide needed accommodations, schools point to the undue burden factor as the reason for the lack of compliance. Indeed, if teachers and schools simply continue practices that have been in place for decades (printed worksheets, stationary desks with restrictions on student movement, captionless videos, etc.), having to suddenly remediate materials, spaces, and practices can feel like an undue burden in terms of costs and time.

This is where the ethical aspects of accessibility come in for educators. It turns out that accessible spaces and materials are often more effective for all students. Documents with headings have built-in tables of contents, making it much easier for all users to navigate. Captions help a variety of viewers, as they often provide spellings of key terms, help sleepy students follow along, or supplement questionable sound systems in classrooms where students may not be able to hear the video’s sound fully. Design considerations that help students with dyslexia, ADHD, and various other learning disabilities have been shown to improve learning effectiveness for all students.

If you know that making your class and its curricular materials accessible ahead of time will make meeting future accommodations less onerous and improve learning for even more of your students, why not proactively aim for accessibility? Many educators cite a lack of familiarity with accessibility standards and a sense of overwhelm in considering the volume of materials to remediate; that’s a realistic, fair concern. But it is akin to deciding not to start an exercise program because you might not qualify for the Olympics! Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach, consider identifying just one thing you can incorporate into your teaching. When you begin to remediate existing resources, you will become more comfortable ensuring your one thing is already in place as you create new resources. Pretty soon, that one thing will simply be a regular part of your teaching practice, and you can add another just one thing you want to make accessible. Accessibility practices will be explored in later modules, so start considering what kinds of accessibility practices you want to learn about and incorporate as part of your ethical commitment to students.

Approach

The PLAAF in the IEP describes the individual student’s present levels of academic achievement. Note the emphasis on ensuring the individual human being is centered and starting with what that student can do. This requires a different lens, shifting from thinking of disability as a deficit to considering each individual’s way of moving through their physical and social environments and finding ways to adjust the environment accordingly.

There are many different models of disability. As we will explore in greater detail in future modules, societal perspectives and approaches to disability have often done great harm, but some models can point us toward greater equity for people with disabilities. The Social Model of Disability asserts that a “disability” is a mismatch between a person’s abilities and the social and physical construction of the environments they inhabit.

When we start from this perspective, we better understand our ethical responsibility to create environments where the strengths of students with disabilities can be fully appreciated and supported. As a future educator, whether you work directly in special education, as a classroom teacher, or in another educator role, you will encounter lingering mindsets, even laws and institutional structures, that rely on other models of disability (including and especially the medical model of disability). As you continue through this course, consider the ways you will need to navigate through the legal requirements an educator has in special education while also forming your own ethical approach to facilitating a free appropriate public education for every single one of your students.

Special Education Responsibilities, Rights, and Ethics

References

29 U.S. Code 3002 – Definitions. Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School.

Accessibility Statement (n.d.). Regulations.gov

Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulations (2012). U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2023). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards.

Information and Communication Technology: Revised 508 Standards and 255 Guidelines. U.S. Access Board.

Loftus, P. (2021). Web Accessibility Laws That Affect K-12 Schools. 3Play Media.

Miller, E. (2021).Oregon judge orders Hood River County School District to pay for former student’s lost year of schooling. Oregon Public Broadcasting.

National Education Association. (2019). Know Your Rights: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Office for Civil Rights (2006). Your Rights Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
About the U.S. Access Board.

Parental Rights under IDEA (2021, October). Center for Parent Information and Resources.

Smith, T.E.C. (2001). Section 504, the ADA, and public schools: What educators need to know. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 335-343

Thomson Reuters (2022). Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Website Compliance. In GPSolo eReport February 2022, American Bar Association.

Wells, M, and Clayton, C. (2023)Foundations of American Education: A Critical Lens (Chapter 2, “Influences on Learning: Student Differences and Similarities“), by Melissa Wells and Courtney Clayton, under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Woolridge, S. (2023). Writing Respectfully: Person-First and Identity-First Language.