|
Educating
Students with Disabilities in Pennsylvania:
Kim Geyer, Mars School Director, 451 Denny Road, Valencia,
PA 16059, May 2004
IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act) was passed in 1975, when before
that time; a million American children were excluded from
education due to their disability. Not only were these children
excluded from the education environment, but, they were recognized
by the mistaken belief that disabled children did not deserve
attention as was first exhibited by concepts of Plato and
Aristotle. Furthermore, society and public policy went along
with this notion by segregating these students into special
institutions rather than providing opportunities for inclusion.
However, by the 1970’s, there was societal shift in
public attitude, as well as, policy that acknowledged these
students and their civil rights as people, as well as, their
rights and ability to learn and be educated.
Thirty
years later, some question if these same students will be
left behind as a result of the education policy enacted through
the No Child Left Behind Act?
While it is unclear as to what the ramifications of the new
federal law will be, one thing is clear, everyone, depending
upon “who” you are and “where” you
sit, has a different perspective. Add to that equation the
fact, that there is obvious conflict between the statutory
and federal laws of IDEA and NCLB
and there are many unanswered questions needing to be addressed
and resolved to keep both laws separate yet cooperative and
workable in a positive resolution for the guarantee of basic
opportunity for all students with disabilities.
With the AYP provision as contained
in NCLB, schools
actually will have an incentive to exclude children with disabilities
from testing unless schools are recognized with some type
of incentive or reward for serving them effectively. Excluding
them entirely from school accountability purposes would deteriorate
student performance of these individuals in a profound and
negative manner. There needs to be the consideration of schools
not lowering the bar, so to speak, or diluting the standards
and benchmarks aspired to by students, in an effort for schools
not to appear better or worse as a district through AYP subgroup
scores.
Students with disabilities are
to be given a free and appropriate public education regardless
of the severity of their disability and that education must
be broadly defined to include essential life skills and rehabilitative
services. Currently, the way the system is created and formula
driven, special education students state assessment scores
are counted toward the determination of the school they are
attending as making adequate yearly progress. As a result,
because of low scoring performance by these student subgroups,
schools are penalized for failing to meet AYP and begin a
corrective action process. Therefore, testing should be done
conducive to the IEP’s of these particular students
in the event of testing and conducted in a manner which focuses
on individual student growth which focuses on what they know,
instead of punitive for them as individual students.
By definition and criteria, special education students are
placed in individualized education programs as a result of
an evaluation process, which has determined that these students
will be unable to reach 100% proficiency without some type
of modifications or accommodations for learning, as well as,
assessment purposes. IDEA is designed to
foster cooperation between parents and schools through IEP’s
as a team effect. NCLB
conflicts with IDEA in numerous instances,
such as, assessing special education students in a manner
that is in conflict with their Individualized Education Plan.
NCLB focuses
on a state score of “proficiency” while IDEA
law focuses on student progress and is based on a team concept
with multiple measures of assessment. Despite occassions,
when IEP teams suggest the state assessment is inappropriate
for a particular special education student, NCLB
still requires that student to take the regular state assessment
(PSSA). NCLB's “one
size fits all” theory is not highly regarded
when it comes to special education students. IDEA recognizes
that each student is unique with a unique set of learning
circumstances, learning rates, skills, and support that varies
as student’s progress at different rates, yet NCLB
utilizes similar standards for all students to meet “proficiency”.
80% of special education students failed to meet proficiency
last school year. In the case of children with disabilities,
the desired outcomes include self sufficiency and employment.
Schools are held to fulfilling mandates of NCLB
that obviously conflict and obstruct with the measurements
utilized to judge a school’s performance in meeting
adequate yearly progress.
While there are many positive
implications of NCLBfor
special education students such as reliance on data driven
decision making rather than subjective assessment and emphasis
on utilizing standards based, scientifically proven teaching
methods. School districts are furthermore exercising greater
flexibility and local control by utilizing grant resources
for tutoring programs which focuses on more individualized
attention and remediation. NCLB
places a premium value on parental control as well by expanding
choices for parents, such as moving a child out from a ‘low
performing” school district as outlined via school choice
initiatives in corrective action plans of schools failing
to meet AYP. Regardless, there are higher expectations for
students with disabilities, as their cut scores count in determining
a school’s ability to meet AYP.
On the other hand there are
some negative connotations which will challenge schools and
states with IDEA and NCLB,
such as fulfilling mandates despite conflict with one and
other. One such example is when NCLB
utilizes measurements of math and reading standards via student
achievement of the PSSA, while IDEA suggests
the primary outcomes for students with disabilities should
be self-sufficiency and employment. Second, there is the possibility
that NCLB's school-wide
performance criteria could be in tension with IDEA’s
requirement to identify and address individual needs
of students who have a disability.
Third, there’s the concern
that schools need to have staff that are suitably qualified
in content areas as well as in special education. Lack of
professional development and training is a general area of
weakness in the system of meeting the needs of special education
students. The average regular education teacher has just 1.3
courses in reading and many have no special education training
at all. With a teacher shortage, and young special education
teachers leaving the teaching field because of administrative
IEP meetings, documentation and technicalities experienced
throughout the special education system and a generalized
30% shortage of university instructors in special education,
there appears to be no short cut solutions to the long term
problems needing addressed. Fourth, responding to the choices
now available to parents whose child’s school is identified
as “low performing” and while it is recognized
that parents are provided “school choice”, the
next school may not offer nor provide the same special services
needed for one’s child to meet their IEP. Schools cannot
control the amount of special education students enrolled
within one’s district. Parents of students with disabilities
generally know and are well aware of what districts provide
the most effective student services before enrollment. Some
schools that provide excellent educational services are targeted
by consumers, meaning parents and students with disabilities,
by increased enrollments. Therefore, continuity in the state’s
contingency fund is of utmost importance in protecting schools
against catastrophic special education costs, especially when
according to a recent National Conference of State Legislators
analysis (Spring 2004) found that states will be forced to
absorb more than $9 billion in federal special education costs
for fiscal year 2004. States that suffer most under the IDEA
mandate include Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
Currently,
on the far end of the spectrum, national experts and local
counselors also warn that gifted and talented students are
the hidden at-risk group that can struggle and also have profound
negative implications as a result of the NCLB
Act. The focus of NCLB
is increasing grades of disadvantaged and lower end learners.
The students at the other extreme, the most intelligent, are
not a high priority. In the world of NCLB,
students moving from proficient to advanced really have no
meaning or incentive…..in NCLB,
you’re either proficient or you are not. Finding funding
and qualified teachers for high achieving children will remain
a challenge, as well as, for special education students.
In the years to come, we may
have an entire new achievement gap of students literally left
behind as a result of the NCLB
policy… perhaps the student segment least expected…the
students in the middle of the learning spectrum with no IEP’s,
average student learners, as well as, the higher end achievers…time
will certainly tell the tale.
Kim Geyer
May 2004
<
Back to No Child Left Behind
|
