The Sound Of A Closed Door Can Be Deafening

There is something very intriguing about the doors to public education. I don’t know who built the first one, but I am sure that information could be found if one took the time. I have no doubt that the study of the origin and progression of public schools in our country would be a fascinating endeavor . I am also sure the following statement made by a former Teacher of the Year would not go without challenge:

“ The secret of American schooling is that it doesn't teach the way children learn
- nor is it supposed to. Schools were conceived to serve the economy and the social order rather than kids and families -- that is why it is compulsory.”



I throw that out there for others to attack or defend. The premise is why I have chosen it. The fact that even today there is much discussion about whether current influences on public education are self serving and not truly aimed at education is no different than the above premise.

I do know of two major social issues where it took the Federal Court to pry open the doors of public education that were obviously closed for two identifiable groups. One major door opening to the public as a whole was Brown v. Board of Education. Another major door opening to the public as a whole was the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA or the Act). One must read about the many other doors that had to be pried open before these two major doors were forcibly opened.

Since the mid 1990's this writer first learned about the secret that when the teacher's door is closed, it is their realm. In fact it was told to me in that way almost verbatim. The secret was dirty then, and it remains so today.

I have previously asked the question "what rights does a regular education student have to their education." The answer to that question increases in intrigue and difficulty when one compares it to the answer of the question "what rights does a special education student have to their education."

Understanding case laws that have shaped our public education system is a formidable task. Many of the people who work day in and day out may not even know or understand where the pressures come from that effect their daily routine. A door may be physically closed, and a parent may be physically kept out of the classroom, but is that really keeping the parent out of the classroom?


I have chosen a passage from a federal case HONIG, California Superintendent of Public Instruction v. DOE, et al. to make a point:

"Envisioning the IEP as the centerpiece of the statute's education delivery system for disabled children, and aware that schools had all too often denied such children appropriate educations without in any way consulting their parents, Congress repeatedly emphasized throughout the Act the importance and indeed the necessity of parental participation in both the development of the IEP and any subsequent assessments of its effectiveness. See 1400(c), 1401(19), 1412(7), 1415(b)(1)(A), (C), (D), (E), and 1415(b)(2). Accordingly, the Act establishes various procedural safeguards that guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate. These safeguards include the right to examine all relevant records pertaining to the identification, evaluation and educational placement of their child; prior written notice whenever the responsible educational agency proposes (or refuses) to change the child's placement or program; an opportunity to present complaints concerning any aspect of the local agency's provision of a free appropriate public education; and an opportunity for "an impartial due process hearing" with respect to any such complaints. 1415(b)(1), (2)."

If we examine this part of the statement, does this not "put the parent in the classroom" : "guarantee parents both an opportunity for meaningful input into all decisions affecting their child's education and the right to seek review of any decisions they think inappropriate?"