Taking on the Continuum

Since entering the field of education, special education to be specific, I've been taught that every child has a right to the full continuum of services they need in order to access meaningful education.   These services may range from an enlarged worksheet, to more time on a test, occupational therapy or a one on one aide.  The level of need, or amount of services deemed necessary wasn't the issue.  Of concern to me was this: What does Joey need to be educated meaningfully with his peers?  I, based on this understanding, arranged educational opportunities that supported the growth of each student.  Place was never brought up as a discussion point.  Honestly, it never entered my mind.  Where the child was to be educated remained consistent, in the same class he or she would attend if he or she did not have a need for different specialized services (AKA determined to have a disability).

However, I am not naive and I realized early on in my career that this is not the same interpretation of the continuum of services that all my fellow colleagues across the country held.  Instead, many, I've learned, view the continuum of services as continuum of different places for kids with disabilities to be educated, ranging from the same classroom they would attend if they didn't recieve special education services (commonly referred to as the general education classroom) to receiving their education in a center school, institution or hospital (institutionalized or segregated education).  In other words, it seems to me that some of my peers interpret the continuum to be a legal legitimation to segregate kids based on level of need. Is this the case?

Federal education law for individuals with disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), states that districts must provide a continuum of alternative placements in the bill's regs.  Similarly, the current iteration of the bill itself (2004) and it's original regulations from 1975 mandate that children with disabilities receive a full continuum of related services.  To me, and I believe to congress, these are two different issues... or are they? Local interpretation seems to be quite confused on this issue, and has been since 1975 (the original passing of the law) (Taylor, 2004). 


To try and untangle the confusion I will investigate the definition and meaning of "the continuum". Over the next 3 months (or more- hopefully not though) I will be digging through federal regulations and congressional hearings from IDEA beginning in 1965, continuing through 2004 (the most recent passing of the bill).  I will also be looking at key supreme court cases that pushed congress to pass the bill and any research I can find on the issue (I don't think there is much- it seems to be a left alone topic.  I wonder why?).

My hope is that I can make some sense out of the varying interpretations and implementaion of "the continuum".  For you, it may seem like a waste of time, but then again you may not be a person with a disability that is forced to go to school 30 miles away from your brother because some group of professionals decided you needed "intense" services, and those "services" were only available way over there.  Becuase, if you were that person, I think (or at least hope) you'd understand why I need to do this.

Wish me luck and stay tuned.

I will update you as I go.