Eğitim Politikaları Oluştururken Belirlenen Hedefler Arasında Denge Kurma: IDEA’nın Eşitlik ve Refah Hedefleri

Öz

Ulusal politikalar ve Engelli Bireylerin Eğitim Yasası (IDEA) (2004) gibi federal yasalar, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde (ABD) özel eğitimin gelişmesinde önemli bir rol oynamıştır. Özellikle IDEA’nın kapsamış olduğu eğitim politikaları, federal hükümetin özel gereksinimli bireyler için belirlediği hedeflere ulaşmasında büyük bir öneme sahiptir. Ancak, politik kararlar almak kolay olmamakla birlikte alınan kararlar diğer politik kararlar üzerinde olumsuz etki oluşturabilmektedir. Bu etki, belirlenen politikalardan fayda sağlamayı amaçlayan kişiler veya diğerleri için olumsuz etkilere neden olabilir. Dolayısıyla, bir politika kararı verirken, kararların hedeflenen kişiler veya diğer kişiler üzerindeki olası etkileri göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır. Bu çalışma, öncelikle, ABD federal hükümetinin IDEA yasası aracılığıyla ulaşmak istediği hedefleri açıklamakta, daha sonra IDEA’nın 6 temel ilkesinden biri olan sürece dayalı yasal güvence ilkesinin hükümetin belirlediği politika hedeflerini karşılamadaki rolü üzerinde durmaktadır. Son olarak, sürece dayalı yasal güvence ilkesi aracılığıyla amaçlanan eşitlik ve refah hedeflerine ulaşmak için uygulanana politikaların, bu politikalardan faydalanması amaçlanan bireyler veya diğer bireylerin özgürlük ve güvenliği üzerindeki potansiyel etkileri üzerinde durmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eğitim politikaları
• politik hedefler
• özel eğitim
• eşitlik
• refah
• özgürlük
• güvenlik

Trade-off between Goals When Making Educational Policy Decision: Providing Equity and Welfare through “IDEA”

Öz

National policies, federal laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, and federal regulations have played an important role in the improvement of special education in the United States. Especially, IDEA (2004) has been crucial to achieving the federal government’s national disability policies. However, political decision making is not easy and when a law or its provisions were intended to meet a goal, they may create a trade-off with another goal. This trade-off may cause conflict or harm for the people who are intended to get benefit from the policy. Therefore, it is important to consider possible trades-off when making a policy decision. This study first described the goals that individual government policies were designed to meet through IDEA. Then, emphasized the specific role of the procedural safeguards provisions of IDEA in meeting government’s intended policy goals. Finally, this study discussed how procedural safeguards provisions of IDEA create trades-off between intended policy goals and other policy goals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• policy making
• trade-off between goals
• special education
• IDEA

Kaynakça

1. Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 4(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2009v4n5a99
2. Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In H. Hardy (Eds.), Liberty (pp. 166-217). Oxford.
3. Berlin, I. (2013). The hedgehog and the fox: An essay on Tolstoy’s view of history. Princeton.
4. Burgard, S. A., Brand, J. E., & House, J. S. (2009). Perceived job insecurity and worker health in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 777-785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.029
5. Cavelty, M. D., & Wenger, A. (2020). Cyber security meets security politics: Complex technology, fragmented politics, and networked science. Contemporary Security Policy, 4, 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1678855
6. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (2014). IDEA special education mediation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555856.pdf
7. Greve, B. (Eds.). (2008). The Routledge handbook of the welfare state. Routledge.
8. Grigoreva, E., & Garifova, L. (2015). The economic security of the state: The institutional aspect. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24, 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00658-9

9. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
10. Işıktaç, Y. (2020). Isaiah Berlin: Negative and positive liberty. Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul, 68, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.26650/annales.2019.68.0003
11. Kalyanpur, M., Harry, B., & Skrtic, T. (2000). Equity and advocacy expectations of culturally diverse families: Participation in special education. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 47, 119-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/713671106
12. Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (1979).
13. Mandic, C. G., Rudd, R., Hehir, T., & Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2012). Readability of special education procedural safeguards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910362774
14. Martinez, S. M., Frongillo, E. A., Leung, C., & Ritchie, L. (2018). No food for thought: Food insecurity is related to poor mental health and lower academic performance among students in California’s public university system. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(12), 1930-1939. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318783028
15. McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600302
16. Myklebust, J. O. (2013). Disability and adult life: Dependence on social security among former students with special educational needs in their late twenties. British Journal of Special Education, 40(1). 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12011
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
18. Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Serna, L. (Eds.). (2008). Strategies for teaching learners with special needs (9th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
19. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung C. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301
20. Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). Norton.
21. Timothy W. v. Rochester School District, 875 F. 2d 924 (1989).
22. Turnbull, H. R. (2005). Individuals with disabilities education act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility. Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 320-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260060201
23. Turnbull, H. R., Stowe, M. J., & Huerta, N. E. (2007). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (7th ed.). Love Pub.
24. U.S. Department of Education. (2023, January 11). A history of the İndividuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History
25. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2019, December 4). Special education: IDEA dispute resolution activity in selected states varied based on school districts' characteristics. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-22
26. Yell, M. L., (2012). The law and special education. Pearson.