Abstract
This chapter examines the emergent legislative frameworks that protect the rights of people with disabilities and inform inclusive practices in schools. We explore the nature of disability discrimination legislation in the United States, Australia and India. Trends in how legislation is developed and reviewed indicate problems and processes in the governance of inclusion in schools. In general trends, the United States has articulated access and participation rights, but these rights are constantly contested in litigation. Australia has a broad definition of who may have a disability, but their appeal mechanisms are limited and costly, and long court cases interfere with the continuity of student learning. India has the context of a large population, poverty and a diverse range of needs for people with disabilities, so the focus in schools remains on access rather than the quality of the learning experience, and so compliance is not enforced. The hurdles for inclusive education, although unique to each country, are also globally consistent as issues of access, participation and pedagogical quality impinge on learning and the quality of life outcomes for all students with disabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 334 F. Supp.1257 (U.S. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972.
- 2.
Rehabilitation Act, 1973 # 794d (f).
- 3.
For example, Mills v. D.C. Board of Education 384 F. Supp. 866 (District Court of Colombia, 1972) and Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, v. Doe 484 U.S. 305, 108 S.Ct.592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
- 4.
Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Subpart A. Reg. Sec.104.3 (j).
- 5.
See, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons, 1972; the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, 1989; the World Conference on Education for All, 1990; the United Nations Standard Rules for the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, 1993; and the Salamanca Statement, 1994.
- 6.
See Alex Purvis on behalf of Daniel Hoggan v. the State of New South Wales (Department of Education) 2000 [HREOC].
- 7.
Finney v. the Hills Grammar School [1999] HREOC (20 July 1999).
- 8.
See Alex Purvis on behalf of Daniel Hoggan v. the State of New South Wales (Department of Education) 2000 [HREOC].
- 9.
See Mrs. J, on behalf of herself and AJ v. a School [1998] HREOC (23 March 1998).
- 10.
Section 7, DDA, 1992.
- 11.
Marita Murphy and Burkhard Grahl on behalf of themselves and Sian Grahl v. the State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) and Wayne Houston ( 2000) HREOC (27 March 2000).
- 12.
“I” v. O’Rourke and Corinda State High School and Minister for Education for Queensland (2000) provides a good example of the complexity of this process.
- 13.
See, for example, Finney v. the Hills Grammar School [1999] HREOC (20 July 1999) and “P” v. the Director-General, Department of Education, Townsville. [1997] Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (13 March 1997).
References
Bartlett, L. (2000). Medical services: The disputed related service. The Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 215. doi:10.1177/002246690003300404.
Barton, B. (2009). Dreams deferred: Disability definitions, data, models, and perspectives. The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 36(4), 13–24.
Barton, L., & Slee, R. (1999). Competition, selection and inclusive education: Some observations. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(1), 3–12. http://doi.org/10.1080/136031199285147
Cumming, J., & Dickson, E. (2012). Educational accountability tests, social and legal inclusion approaches to discrimination for students with disability: A National case study from Australia. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(2), 221–239.
Department of Education, T. a. Y. A. (2000). Disability standards for education – Draft. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Flynn, C. (1997). Disability discrimination in schools. London: National Children’s and Youth Law Centre.
Graham, L., Sweller, N., & Van Bergen, P. (2010). Detaining the usual suspects: Charting the use of segregated settings in New South Wales government schools. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(3), 234–248. doi:10.2304/ciec.2010.11.3.234.
Holt, L. (2016). Young people with socio-emotional differences: Theorising disabilty and destabilising socio-emotional norms. In V. Chouinard, E. Hall, & R. Wilton (Eds.), Towards enabling geographies: ‘Disabled’ bodies and minds in society and space (pp. 145–160). New York: Routledge.
Innes, G. (2000a, December 6). The disability discrimination act seven years on: Have we had the good years or are they still to come. Paper presented at the Pathways Conference, Canberra.
Innes, G. (2000b, December 4). The role of public enquiries and exemption powers in eliminating disability discrimination. Paper presented at the Constructing law and disability conference, Australian National University.
Katsiyannis, A., & Yell, M. L. (2000). The supreme court and school health services: Cedar rapids v Garret F. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 317–326.
Lear, R. (1995). The extent of public schools’ responsibility to provide health–related services. Paper presented at the 16th. Annual institute on legal issues of educating students with disabilities. Alexandria/Vancouver.
Lewis, J. E. (1999). Court opens door for congressional review of IDEA. The School Administrator, 56(6), 38.
Lindsay, K. (1997). Discrimination law and special education. Paper presented at the legal and accounting management seminar on school law, Sydney.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes.
McKinney, J. R., & Mead, J. F. (1996). Law and policy in conflict: Including students with disabilities in parental choice programmes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 107.
McLeod, S., Press, F., & Phelan, C. (2010). The (In)visibility of children with communication impairment in Audtralian health, education and disability legislation and politics. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 13(1), 67–75.
Mehrotra, N. (2011). Disability rights movements in India: Politics and practice. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI(6), 65–72.
Osborne, J. A. G. (1999). Students with disabilities. In C. J. Russo (Ed.), The yearbook of education law (pp. 141–179). Daytona: Education Law Association.
Osborne, J. A. G. (2000). Students with disabilities. In C. J. Russo (Ed.), The yearbook of education law 2000 (pp. 167–195). Dayton: Education Law Association.
Parrish, T. B. (2001). Who’s paying the rising cost of special education. Centre for Special Education Finance.
Pullin, D. (1999). Whose schools are these and what are they for? The role of the rule of law in defining educational opportunity in American public education. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 3–29). Toledo: Academic Press.
Ramsay, I. M., & Shorten, A. R. (1996). Education and the law. Sydney: Butterworths.
Rioux, M. (2013). Disability rights in education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The sage handbook of special education (pp. 131–147). Los Angeles: Sage.
Russo, C. J. (2001). Disciplining students with disabilities. Paper presented at the canadian association for the practical study of law in education. Vancouver.
Rutherford-Turnbull, H., Wilcox, B. L., Stowe, M., & Turnbull, A. P. (2001). IDEA requirements for the use of PBS (Positive behavioural interventions and supports): Guidelines for responsible agencies. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(1), 11.
Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895–907. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.602534.
Stewart, D. J. (1998). Legalisation of education: Implications for principals’ professional knowledge. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2), 129–145.
Stewart, D. J., & McCann, P. (1999). Educators and the law: Implications for the professional development of school administrators and teachers. Journal of In-Service Education, 25(1), 135–150.
Stewart, D., Russo, C. J., & Osborne, J. A. G. (in press). Meeting the educational needs of children with disabilities: Perspectives from Australia and the United States. Education and Law Journal (Canada).
Thomas, S. B., & Hawke, C. (1999). Health-care service for children with disabilities: Emerging standards and implications. The Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 226.
Williams, P. (1996). The law and students with learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1(2), 4–13. doi 10.1080/19404159609546504
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keeffe, M., Ghosh, R. (2017). Legislation, Case Law and Current Issues in Inclusion for the United States, Australia and India. In: Halder, S., Assaf, L. (eds) Inclusion, Disability and Culture. Inclusive Learning and Educational Equity, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55224-8_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55224-8_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55223-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55224-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)