'Mainstreaming'
Special-Ed Students Needs Debate
What has been the law's impact on students who
are not disabled? The matter at least merits discussion.
By MIRIAM KURTZIG FREEDMAN
Americans tend to be a
vocal people, sharing their views about almost any issue in the public sphere
loudly and frequently. Yet on the question of how to provide special-education
services to students who need them—while not compromising the interests of
children who don't—many parents of regular-education students have opted out of
any public discourse.
Nationwide, about 60% of students with disabilities spend at least
80% of their instructional time in regular classrooms. Many parents of other
children in public schools understand that when teachers focus on students who
need more attention, their kids may get shortchanged. Yet most parents opt out
of any discussion and don't complain.
The special-education
system in the U.S. is highly regulated by law, expensive, and sometimes marked
by litigiousness. Those working to reform the system are almost exclusively
people with a direct stake in it—including school representatives, parents of
students with disabilities, advocates, lawyers, special educators, academics
and government officials. Since members of the general public and parents of
regular-education students (who account for 86% of students) rarely weigh in,
the interests of regular-education school-age students are not sufficiently
explored.
It's time to think about
what we are doing, rather than simply to continue with the current broken
system. That's the only way to help all students succeed.
Before 1975, more than a million students with disabilities were
excluded from schools and some 3.5 million did not receive appropriate
services. That year, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, now called the Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1990. Students
identified as disabled have since been guaranteed access to what the law calls
a "free appropriate public education," and their parents have the right
to participate in (and dispute) the school's development of an annual
"individualized education program" for their child. No other group of
students or parents enjoys such rights.
Today, six million
students with disabilities (about 14% of all students) have the right to a free
appropriate public education and an individualized education program. Between
70% and 80% of these students have mild or moderate disabilities, including
learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, social and emotional disabilities,
and other conditions, such as ADHD. Only 20% to 30% have more severe
disabilities, such as cognitive impairments, multihandicapping conditions,
deafness or blindness.
Special education is
expensive. Estimates of its cost nationwide range between $80 billion and $110
billion per year, and the spending continues to rise faster than
regular-education spending. The burden falls mostly on state and local
governments. Federal law drives special education, but the federal contribution
is less than 20%. The law has spawned an industry of parent attorneys and
advocates, school attorneys (of which I am one), experts, mediators, hearing
officers, administrative law judges and other dispute-resolution professionals.
This is in addition to educators and service providers in schools, and the many
federal, state and local officials, evaluators and consultants who manage the
system.
By law, students with
disabilities have the right to be in the "least restrictive
environment" to the maximum extent "appropriate," with added
resources such as computers, large-print or recorded books, and personal aides,
if needed. The push to place these students in regular classes is called
"inclusion" (or sometimes "mainstreaming"). The federal
government has target indicators in state improvement plans, recording how many
students with disabilities are in regular classes.
Look into the research
on inclusion and you will find that this policy is generally based on notions
of civil rights and social justice, not on "best education practices"
for all students. The effectiveness of inclusion for students with disabilities
varies—some groups and individual students benefit; others don't. This is one
reason why inclusion remains controversial in some segments of the disability
community.
Very little work has
been done to establish how inclusion affects regular students—whether they are
average, English-language learners, advanced, poor or homeless. Studies seem to
support the social benefits of mainstreaming for children with disabilities and
possibly for regular-education students, but what about the effect on their
academic progress?
Teachers may tell you
(privately) that inclusion often leads them to slow down and simplify classroom
teaching. Yet the system is entrenched and politically correct. Many parents
remain silent. Some quietly remove their kids from public schools.
Can this be anything but
very bad for America? Our schools thrive only with a diverse student population
and engaged parents—not with the departure of those who choose to leave.
None of this is about
being anti- or pro-special or regular education. The purpose is to focus on
fairness and equity for all students in the nation's classrooms. That goal can
only be achieved by encouraging many more people, especially parents and
educators, to come forward with their views and experiences. The time for that
robust, inclusive and frank national discussion is now.
Ms. Freedman is a school
attorney, of counsel to Stoneman, Chandler & Miller LLP in Boston. She is
the author of, among other books, "Fixing Special Education—12 Steps to
Transform a Broken System" (Park Place Publishing, 2009).
No comments:
Post a Comment