Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

drsarah 24 May 2007 16:22

Read Clint Bolick s Education Week article A Bad IDEA Is Disabling Public Schools (September 5, 2001). The article presents the view that special education is damaging schools and that we should eliminate the term learning disabilities. What s your opinion? Are learning deficits real disabilities? What might be some alternative solutions to the problems the author raises?

You have two options for viewing Clint Bolick's article.

1. By clicking on the edweek article link you will need to sign up for an Education Week account. This will allow you to access comments and other articles.

2. To view the article as a PDF document, click on "files" below and then open the document titled "A Bad IDEA is Disabling Public Schools PDF"

Last edited on 24 May 2007 16:24 by drsarah Show more

Re: Special Education in Public School

kholtschlag 28 Jun 2007 17:14

The more children I meet, the more I am convinced that each of them could be identified as having “special needs”. I feel for the author of the article who came to the realization that the only way his son could receive extra assistance in writing was to label him as “learning disabled.” I have met a student who was incredibly mature and had the ability to read Shakespeare on her own and correctly respond to clarifying questions, yet the organization of her writing was dismal. I had a student who spent the entire class period interrupting me and having side conversations, yet was the class go-to for the higher-order thinking questions posed aloud in discussions. Neither of these children were identified as learning disabled, yet a talkative child, with no other apparent obstacles to learning, was identified as having Turret’s Syndrome. It was later explained to me that she had a variety of Turret’s syndrome that caused her to chat at inappropriate times. I don’t know much about Turret’s, but I do know that if we used this definition, each and every child could be diagnosed with it.

Although Bolik proposes reforms that indeed have the potential to ameliorate the special education situation in our schools, I believe the most important reform can come from the organization of a school. To equitably address each student’s special needs (identified as such or not), we need to have the technology and training available to teachers so that we can meet the students’ needs on an individualized basis. We should have smaller class sizes, paired with constant collaboration with other teachers that identify best practices in reaching our unique group of students. Finally, we should have support systems (counselors, special educators, and administrators) available to assist us in case class size, collaboration, technology, and training fail. These reforms – for in some schools they would create a dramatically different environment – done at the ground level, will have a more direct impact than any law.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

kainjeri 29 Jun 2007 15:49

In my opinion I do not believe that learning deficit's are real disbilities. They are what they are, a "deficit". Students are lacking developmentally(academically and socially) in comparsion to their peers. These students with learning deficits are not performing at least on average what they are according to their age.
In my kindergarten class there are about four students who have IEP's for a variety of reasons (i.e. speech development/delay, motor skills, as well as for emotional or behavioral).

One of those students who receives both OT and Speech therapy could possibly be autistic. He will be tested in the fall (first grade) to see if he does have some level of autism. He is performing way above the other students on a tenth grade level even, but his parents' biggest concern or goal that they would like to see him overcome or reach is to work on his social skills. So, within his IEP their are long-term goals and objectives that are set for him to learn to be more sociable and interact with his peers. And as I have witnessed, this is hard for him because he is not interested in things that a normal 6 year old would be interested in. For his "share" or show and tell, he talks about things like hybrid cars and binomial codes. The other children have no clue as to what he is talking about.

Overall, in relation to the article, I feel as though this particular student is receiving services for disabilties that don't seem to effect him academically. He is receiving services that I feel could go towards so many other children who do have an actual learning disorder. There are students who are priviliged that are receiving Special Ed services and because it is free through the public schools systems, other children are missing out on theses services.

Schools should provide the support that each individual student needs. Teachers (both SE and classroom teachers )should receive the proper training on how to differentiate their lessons and instructions to meet the needs of the students who have learning disabilities. And the parents of these students should always be given resources that will help them in dealing with their child who has has special needs academically, as well as emotionally.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

bankse 29 Jun 2007 18:55

After having read many articles on the "dangers" of special education, this article presented some fascinating new positions. I was particularly struck by the new trend within affluent communities in which parents push their children to be labeled as having a learning disability. Knowing that the number of African American students (particularly in low-income communities) labeled special education is disproportionately high I had always assumed that the number of SPED students in highly affluent communities was quite low. Those that were, I assumed, must be very clear cut cases (e.g. downs syndrome, dyslexia etc.). I had never considered the advantages (unlimited testing time being the most common) that having an IEP might allow. I find it interesting that parents seem to feel this advantage outstrips the psychological implications that often go along with being labeled learning disabled. In the end, this difference in perception might present the strongest evidence for the “warehousing” of special education students that goes on poorer districts.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

RachaelBrown 08 Jul 2007 03:32

Emily addresses Bolick's discussion of how wealthy families, or how those that are able to understand and negotiate within the existing system under IDEA are able to procure additional resources or advantages for their children - merited or not. Bolick also points out that even within the system those resources are distributed unfairly, and many students, particularly African American are denied the services they truly need.

I was faced with an interesting scenario this past year in which a student who clearly had a learning disability (he was recently diagnosed with autism) was unable to receive services because his mother did not understand the system and was unable to negotiate within it. The student and his mother were Asian immigrants, and she did not understand the classification of special education. Despite school attempts to have her son tested for services, she would refuse, fearing negative consequences or harm to her son, despite his suffering in mainstream classes. Not only was she not comfortable interacting with school and district officials, she did not understand the advantages or resources her son was eligible for. The situation was complicated by her poor English skills.

As a result of this experience, I am inclined to wonder if the reason that there are a disproportionate number of minority students in special education is not only because of the reasons discussed previously (they are more likely to have attended schools with inexperienced or ineffective teachers, their schools are are anxious to raise test scores or to be granted the additional funds, etc.) but also because their families are largely outside of the "culture of power" (to borrow Lisa Delpit's phrase) and unprepared to advocate for their children, the way Bolick did for his son.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

ericka 22 Jul 2007 22:17

I definitely think the way economics affect the way special education resources are distributed has horrible implications for low income and minority students. I do think though that the worthy parents described in the article may be on to something. I am a believer in helping students to understand their label as one that describes difference whether then deficits. This is what those parents are doing by advocating for their children and insuring that they are getting the resources and assistance they need.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

drsarah 30 Jun 2007 10:43

Kai comments above that she doesn't think learning deficits are "real disabilities". I would like to read some response to this comment specifically.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

kainjeri 02 Jul 2007 14:11

Let me try and clarify what I said a little. Yes, there are learning deficits such as dyslexia which is a "real disability" that an individual does not overcome as a child and will carry throughout their adulthood.

What I meant is that, for example, in today's school systems children are being labeled learning disabled instantly because some teachers, administrators, and school systems don't want to admit that somewhere along the way someone has failed to provide these students with a sufficient education. If there is a child, who does not understand a variety of math concepts or is having trouble using different algorithms or various problem-solving techniques, does not prove or mean that the child is learning disabled, it just means that they were not taught good problem-solving skills. There is a deficit in that student’s ability to arrive at an answer using a variety of problem-solving solutions.

And this is going on all over the country because the school systems don't want to be held accountable or take responsibility so they figure that there is a disability that is hindering this student from progressing.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

Dfoard 02 Aug 2007 00:37

I was happy to see that Bolick points out and compares the ability of those who are socioeconomically advantaged can use SPED for their children in a more purposeful way versus their urban counter-parts. On the other hand, I often view that the African-American communities either ignore, or are ashamed of SPED. I have a close co-worker who works with the autistic students at our school. On many occasions she leaves work on her lunch hour or tries to visit some of her students' parents on the way home to get their portfolio's signed. These portfolio mean a great deal in the world of SPED/Autism. These portfolios are equivalent to general ed DCCAS tests and scores. Despite the importance of these portfolios, which could lead to more funding for their child's program; many parents either refuse or forget to sign these portfolio. Without parent's signatures, these portfolios are in-valid. What kind of message is being conveyed to those in the position to grant more funds and resources, if the constituents fail to comply?

I have personally worked in both the urban and suburban schooling districts. For many of the students in the suburban districts that are enrolled in SPED, they see their IEP as a deficit versus a disability. In other words, their IEP is not an excuse that handicaps them but rather a deficit that they must make-up for. This particular outlook is supported by a motivational factor that unfortunately our urban children sometimes lack. I also want to point out that from my observations of the urban vs. suburban schools, race is not as much as a determining factor in the SPED program in the suburbs as it may be in the urban schools.

Re: Group Two on Special Education in Public School

tbouldin 03 Aug 2007 15:41

Kai, why aren't student tested in kindergarten for speech and other disabilities? I have a nephew the just completed pre-k, who has an obvious speech disabilities. However, he was been tested or serviced for it throughout the school year, and he attended a full-day program.

Smaller class sizes?

EmilyGreenlee 29 Jun 2007 22:43

I agree with the reforms that Bolick suggests particularly his thoughts on shifting the focus of IDEA from process to perfromance. If IDEA is not achieving measurable academic gains for students, then it is imperative that we hold schools accountable for accomplishing individual student grogress. Successfully holding schools accountable for individual student progress would require, as someone mentioned above, a high level of organization within each school, which I believe would be the most difficult (seemingly impossible)task for the public school system. Reading through Bolick's opinion of IDEA and reflecting back on the experience I have had teaching students who have been labeled as having a learning disability makes me believe that providing students with smaller class sizes may be a solution for many of the students in the special education system who do not have physical or physcological disabilities. Many times, children with learning disblilites perform well socially and academically in a classroom environment where they receive a lot of individual attention. Lowering the student-teacher ratio could provide students with differentiated instruction and allow the teacher to focus on the individual needs of each student.

Re: Smaller class sizes?

drsarah 30 Jun 2007 10:46

Emily suggests above that smaller class sizes might lead to more accountability in schools. How do you think this might happen? And how, specifically, will the student:teacher ratio lead to more differentiated instruction?

Re: Smaller class sizes?

kholtschlag 01 Jul 2007 16:59

To respond to your second question, Sarah…

My understanding of differentiated instruction is that it has to do with a teacher's response to students' varying needs in terms of interest, readiness, and learning preferences. To understand these aspects of our students, we must be constantly assessing them, as their needs will change throughout their growth during the school year. Assessment can take many forms, but I believe the two great ways to assess student learning are by building relationships with the students and looking at data they provide us with.
With a lower student:teacher ratio, we as teachers have more time to build those relationships. We have more time to stop and ask questions and listen to the answers. We can pay more attention to each individual's issues and be better equipped to follow up on them. I've been in both situations - my first year of teaching I had classes of 24-30 students, and can sadly say that I had a personal relationship with MAYBE half of them. The rest, well, it was just hard to keep track of all those kids. I had so much work and no time. Now I work at an alternative school with class sizes of 12-15. I have more time to spend with each individual. I know what their needs are and it's easier to be sensitive to them, and they don't feel the need to compete with one another to get my attention. I could easily write an distinctive and personalized letter of recommendation for each of them. Not only does it feel good to have a relationship with all my students, it's easier to differentiate instruction based on 12-15 students' needs as opposed to 30 students simply because I know them better and I can spend more time thinking about what they will need and how it can be integrated into the classroom.

Re: Smaller class sizes?

drsarah 02 Jul 2007 13:36

Good points Kristin, and I appreciate your honesty in terms of sharing the reality of a large classroom. I wonder if others have similar experiences?

Re: Smaller class sizes?

decicco13 03 Jul 2007 15:48

I absolutely agree that smaller class sizes are necessary to fix not only our special education problems but many of the other problems our schools and students face. I agree with Kristin’s comparisons about class sizes (so much so that I will be teaching at her school's other campus next year). For the last two years teaching in DC has felt like being on the Titanic. Sure we have some lifeboats, but not enough for everyone. There have been students that I have got to know well and with whom I formed close connections. In some cases I was able to help a student make significant improvements, but that always made me feel guilty about all the other students I wasn’t able to help. My first year teaching the students that kept me up at night worrying, were my quiet, well behaved students. These were the students I always felt I didn’t spend enough time with because they weren’t throwing chairs or screaming profanity, or causing some sort of major disruption that required my attention. They were quietly riding out the storm and falling threw the cracks. These are the students that end up in special education because as Kai wrote they, “end up in special education because schools do not want to admit that somewhere along the line someone(s) failed to provide these students with a sufficient education.” In DC your first responsibility is to maintain order in your classroom, if learning takes place, that’s nice too.

Smaller class sizes with more individualized attention and extra help could possible eliminate the need for extra resources for some (or many) of the “deficit” type disabilities (e.g. things other than dyslexia, visual& hearing impairments, etc.). Nothing can substitute for know who your students are and where they are coming from.

Re: Smaller class sizes?

RachaelBrown 08 Jul 2007 03:20

I believe that small classes are always preferred, yet not always possible in our schools. The most desirable effects of smaller class sizes are indeed the opportunity to build stronger relationships with our students - this includes allowing teachers more time to interact with, observe, and informally assess student strengths and weaknesses. Not only is it difficult to differentiate when one has only a couple years experience in a classroom, but it is more so when one sees over eighty or a hundred students a day. Differentiation takes time, to plan for different learning modalities and provisions, to create IEP based assessments - and the more students a teacher is responsible for, the greater their workload.

I'm not proud to say it, but creating alternate assessments for my SPED students, or considering how to best challenge my most advanced beyond handing them a book I think they would like were often were at the end of my to-do lists. Utilitarianism suggests that in our limited time and resources, we work to serve the greatest number of students. Differentiation comes with experience and support, which I didn't have yet.

Re: Smaller class sizes?

EmilyGreenlee 11 Jul 2007 00:44

I had a very similar situation to Kristen regarding large class sizes at the school where I taught. However, I was assigned to teach AP Chemistry for the two years that I taught at Bell High School. During my first year teaching this course, I had five students enrolled and during my second year I four students were enrolled in the course. This extremely small class size allowed me to use a variety of differentiation techniques. I did not have any students with special needs in either class, but students were at varied academic levels in their reading, writing, and math skills. I believe that the small class size allowed me the opportunity to build strong relationships with my students, to better assess my students' strengths and weaknesses, and provide them with instruction that met their academic needs. In my opinion, the benefits of a small class size that I witnessed in this advanced placement course would significantly impact the academic acheivement experienced by students with special needs. There is nothing more amazing to watch than a class of four students constantly discussing and debating the chemistry topics with one another and encouraging each other to succeed at mastering the content. This type of environment would be beneficial for all students, however it would produce extremely significant academic gains for students with special needs. I am absolutely sure of this!

Re: Smaller class sizes?

Bob Jarvis 14 Jul 2007 20:02

Bolick's paper suggests he would like to see funds moved away from IDEA-funded programs for the learning-disabled to a variety of improvements, including smaller class sizes, that would benefit a larger group of children. It also seems virtually all children have some kind of special need(s) that should be identified and addressed. Perhaps we could increase efficiency and reduce stigma by utilizing and maintaining an IEP-type document and program for all children. Some children could receive extra help in math or writing, while others might be assigned enrichment activities (each according to his or her needs). This is really more formal differentiated instruction at the program level. We could then return to direct more resources back to those children with the most serious challenges (e.g., the most needy 2-3%).

Re: Smaller class sizes?

willrhale 18 Jul 2007 14:38

In my experiences with smaller class sizes… it really is a balancing act. I think AP and SAT prep classes would most benefit from having more individualized attention simply because of the massive amount of material that is covered and the assumption that the students are motivated to learn more independently since those are college-level or prep classes.

I say it's a balancing act, because this past year I taught 2 Algebra II classes. One class only had 15 students and the other had 25. My bigger class outperformed my smaller class in every way. Classroom management was more of a challenge with the larger class, but the energy level was always a lot higher with them. Each class also had the same number SPED students. Two of my SPED students in the class of 15 failed while all of my SPED students in the larger class passed. To me, I felt that using other students for support and energy in the classroom really made a difference in keeping momentum going with instruction. I almost felt like I was pulling teeth with my smaller group simply because of the lack of student energy in the room. I know a lot of this has to do with personalities within a class, but there does seem to be a "tipping point."

On the other side of the spectrum, I've also had to teach a class of 30 students and have had the exact opposite effect. My class had too much energy to control and there were too many students to differentiate with… it was wild (which I'm sure is the typical DCPS classroom experience).

Smaller classes will always have the added benefit of providing more opportunities to get to know students and easing differentiation, but you can't give a jolt of energy into a classroom without the students willing to accept it and pass it along.

What about SPED teaching teams? I know several teachers at my school co-taught with a SPED teacher in their classroom. From the adminstration's perspective, this reduces the student-teacher ratio by one-half thus effectively reducing the class size right?

Smaller class sizes & a question that's always bugged me...

dgordon17 23 Jul 2007 04:26

I agree with Will's comments on the pros/cons of smaller classes. I'm not convinced at all that smaller necessarily means better, and I believe (though am not sure) that the research agrees that class size is not a panacea by any means. I'm reminded of a great book I read called The Teaching Gap, which is about the different styles of teaching in Japan compared to the US. It attempts to account for the substantially better math scores by Japanese students. One of its many interesting points is that Japanese math teachers take advantage of their large class sizes by predicting and planning for likely student answers and (more importantly) likely student misconceptions. They study how many students answer certain questions in certain ways, and then plan for how to take advantage of those answers to push the class. With a small class, the teachers cannot count on the various answers being provided. It's an analogy with some problems, for sure, but something to think about.

The other thought I had about this discussion is in response to the idea of learning deficits, especially as measured by standardized tests. When we learn that our students are testing at the 9th percentile in the country (to make up an example), all we hear about is how horrible that is. I agree it's troubling/tragic that our students are not learning….but doesn't SOMEBODY have to be in the 9th percentile? Just as someone has to be in the 59th and the 99th. I never really understood how this works. Am I revealing English teacher inumeracy, or is this aversion to low percentiles a standardized test version of the "not in my backyard" syndrome??

Re: Smaller class sizes & a question that's always bugged me...

drsarah 23 Jul 2007 15:26

the percentile rank in most standardized assessment is really just another way to present the placement of the student on the normal curve in comparison to the norming population. for most assessments, it is rarely that the student placed in the 9th percentile of ALL children who took the test, but in comparison to the smaller group of students upon which the assessment is normed. my other favorite "rant" with regard to those sorts of scaled scores is the use of the Grade Equivalency. often, test will say that a fifth grader is on the "ninth grade reading level". but the child did NOT take the ninth grade assessment. this is just that standard error score on the normal curve with another name. make sense?

Re: Smaller class sizes & a question that's always bugged me...

shakbates 26 Jul 2007 05:27

I believe that as desireable as smaller class sizes are, they must be consistantly small. In my experience with such I had a class that started out with maybe 20 students but toward the middle of the year I was down to about 9 and at years end a consistant 2…4 on a good day! This was a 9th grade class takeing Ramp-Up to Algebra 1, just to give you an idea of the population. When the class was larger we seemed to get more accomplished in a day and many of the students were participatory and appeared to perform well. During independent practice students were not afraid to ask for help and were willing to work with their peers. This changed when the class began to shrink. Along with bodies, participation disappeared as well as the presence of peer help. I like to attribute the change in the studetns to the change in the climate of the class. When we were down to our classes of 2-4 there was a feeling of inferiority because the class was so small. The students viewed smaller classes to mean they should have to do no work. My efforts of encouragement and explanations of the advantages of the smaller setting eventually paid off and the students were successful. Clearly there is an adjustment that needs to be made.

To touch upon the percentile rank and grade equivalency… if I read the posts correctly I think what it says makes sense. This game of percentiles and errors is incredible. The fifth grader is on the ninth grade reading level and has not taken the ninth grade assessment, then continues to test at their rightful grade level sixth, seventh, and eighth simply to be in the top 1st(for example) percentile ranking. How convenient!

Is performance below grade level a disability?

Bob Jarvis 14 Jul 2007 20:16

Surely the scientific and educational communities can differentiate between the child who has some developmental delay in a particular cognitive skill (e.g., writing one's letters in elementary school or sounding out consonants) from the child who simply has not been given adequate instruction appropriate to his or her grade level. These two conditions are very different and so are their "cures." We must improve the science to reduce the incidence of the latter children being falsely labeled as "disabled."

But there are clearly "false negatives" as well. There is often a reluctance to describe some differences in learning ability as a disability at all, particularly when that word is applied to oneself or one's child. I feel our culture has a bias when we cannot easily "see" a condition (literally and figuratively), and the less we understand about a condition, the more likely we are to deny that it is a bona fide condition or disability. We have certainly seen this in the mental health arena. When we can point to a "math center" in the brain that is malformed and say "this causes '41' to look like '14'," I imagine people will be more comfortable with the idea of special services and accommodations. We are simply not there yet scientifically, so it seems to me that we must give the child the benefit of the doubt and assume the disorder is physiological and therefore sufficiently "real."

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

dgordon17 17 Jul 2007 00:52

One of the big debates in literary theory is whether a reader must examine the author in order to examine the text. I go back and forth, but in this case, I cannot separate the article from the author. Clint Bolick is one of the nation's leading conservative lawyers. He founded the libertarian legal organization, The Institute for Justice. He is most famous for (1) leading the opposition to President Clinton's nomination of Lani Guinier as Attorney General, (2) crusading against all forms of affirmative action, and (3) leading the charge for school choice and vouchers. (Fun google fact: Clarence Thomas is the godfather for Bolick's son.)

I put that out there not to dismiss the substance of Bolick's arguments about IDEA, but to put some of them in context. For example, while Bolick cites his experience with his child as a big motivation for his position, I would posit that equally motivating is his disdain for the federal government playing a role in education and his desire to establish school voucher programs. So when he argues for dismantling IDEA or suggests allowing special ed kids to go to private schools, there are agendas at play other than merely doing what is best for students with special needs.

In a separate post, I'll put in my 2 cents about smaller class size, differentiation, and learning deficits, but I want to close by defending the IDEA by pointing out a couple holes in Bolick's argument.

Bolick makes great hay out of the notion that affluent parents are abusing the IEP process to secure presumably unnecessary accommodations for their children. First, I'm not convinced this is even true without more data. Boogeymen like this are often used by ideologues like Bolick but don't stand up to further scrutiny (see, for example, the claim that gay marriage will lead to more divorce among straight married couples).

Second, even if the trend was true, he does not prove that "gaming the system" is the cause. The fact that affluent SAT takers disproportionately receive accommodations could be the result of other factors. For example, perhaps the traditional stigma of "special ed" has been weakening (perhaps due to the success of the IDEA and other disability laws bringing the disabled population's struggle into the sunlight of our society). With less of a stigma, it is possible that more parents (especially stigma-conscious affluent ones) are seeking help for their children. Or perhaps affluent parents are more able/available/effective/powerful at advocating for their children and are therefore more successful than less-affluent parents at securing accommodations. In this view, the problem isn't that affluent kids are getting help; it's that poor kids are not getting the help they need as well.

In close, I think the IDEA, warts and all, is an essential part of our educational system and our commitment to equal treatment of all students. I don't trust the states and local school districts to protect the rights of their special needs students if there were left alone by dumping the IDEA, as Bolick clearly would prefer.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

RachaelG 19 Jul 2007 04:38

I really agree as far as not trusting states to protect the rights of their special needs students without the legislation of the IDEA. I would also love to put Bolick in a room with someone from the school of thinking that every child should be on an IEP- that is that learning styles are so different, and so compellingly worth accomodating that every student should have an individualized plan in which we strive to meet their needs as individually as possible in their public education setting. Obviously this is impractical in our current model of public schooling in the US, but I wonder what he would say to the idea that EVERYONE should have diagnoses of tendencies, stregnths, weaknesses, and that educators should continually strive to accomodate them to the fullest capacity that is possible no matter what name that means we have to write down in someone's file: if they're getting what they need to be successful, write anything you want. That said, we often don't actually offer general education students a free and equal education in the least restrictive environment depending on what you define as least restrictive for a student of age 5, 8, 10, 11, or 18. I agree that funds need to be channelled or reorganized so that general education as a whole can improve its scope, capacity and services. Perhaps better general edcuation would eliminate the need for so much funds in special education because more students' needs would be met without them. IDEA actually advocates for this as well by making sure that if there is a way to keep a student in a general education setting with support, it should be done before students are taken out for stigmatizing, expensive outside interventions.

I agree with Bolick that more resources need to be poured into general education, I disagree that their current misallocation is the result of IDEA policies. I don't think that's a defensible or logical causal relationship. Both programs need more funding to be more sepcifically effective for more students, but neither excludes ore precludes the need for improvement and funds in the other.

Full Funding for IDEA

ericka 22 Jul 2007 22:00

I have conflicted views about this article. Although I agree with much of it, there are other aspects of it which make me uncomfortable.

I have definitely met this parent before. In many of my IEP meetings I have encountered parents who are not happy with their child’s diagnosis and have difficulty accepting it or understanding its purpose. Many parents become visibly uncomfortable and some even become hostile. It’s clear to me that the author is not fully comfortable facing up to his son’s disability and doesn’t fully understand intricacies of working with students with special needs. It’s almost as if the author can’t admit his son is learning disabled because he seems to thinks that label indicates a lack of academic ability.

On the other hand, I know from first-hand experience that the learning disabled diagnosis if overused and often takes the place of a more accurate and useful identification of students’ needs. It’s frustrating to read an IEP which is supposed to be a comprehensive plan based on the unique needs of a student that includes vague labels and generic interventions. I agree with the author that it doesn’t make sense to label children as learning disabled without specifying and addressing their particular disabilities.

I also agree with the author that IDEA is highly bureaucratic and often leads educators and administrators to focus on process, rules, and procedures, instead the individual needs of students. That said, though, I don’t think that the author’s ideas for reform are realistic or likely improve the situation. For example, I definitely don’t think that providing students with scholarships to private schools is the best or most equitable way to ensure that students with special needs get the educational support they need. We can’t provide enough funds to best serve students in this way. In fact, one area that the author is ill informed is the issue of funding. Year after year the federal government has failed to provide the funds the states need to implement IDEA practices and requirements. When IDEA was reauthorized in 2004 congress promised full funding but has yet to deliver. It doesn’t make much sense to say a program isn’t working when it does not receive the financial support it needs to be successful. Educating students with special needs is an inheritely expensive obligation. If we want to do it well we have to be willing to pay for it. For more information check-out the National Center for Learning Disabilities site, http://www.ncld.org/content/view/270/456015/

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

torib3a 27 Jul 2007 17:30

First, I have to comment on the notes made above regarding Bolick’s hidden agenda. I was a journalist for years before becoming a teacher, and if I learned one thing in the profession, it’s that EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA FOR WRITING AND GIVING THEIR OPINION. You cannot divorce this fact from the reality of it, especially with the ties of this author (and thanks to the writer of the post about his background!). secondly, though, he does have some good points. One of the biggest problems with IDEA today are the nebulous laws governing the funding of this program. You cannot implement such programs without proper funding, and cannot demand results without money (re: NCLB here and districts pulling their schools from accountability with testing because of lack of funding to provide adequate program on campus to prepare for the tests)!!! therefore, we need to properly fund these structures. Deficits on behalf of our students result from a lack of foundational knowledge brought to the classroom from the grade level before. Our kids are passed through the system due to social promotion, and they are put into the next grade having not mastered the concepts from the year. Thus, I have students in my ninth grade English class reading and writing on the third grade level – not because they are “dumb,’ but because they were not given the proper foundational knowledge back in elementary school. If a student does not know the material, they should not be passed on!!! So, deficits are not true learning disabilities (like dyslexia, or the inability to conceptualize space and time). They merely are symptoms of our education system’s lack of proper education for our kids. This brings me back to the supportive services argument: deficits should be met with school programs to address them, like foundational reading and writing courses, small classes with one on one instruction for students suffering from the same needs in regard to their lack of foundational subject knowledge. Teachers must be taught to differentiate for their kids (in my opinion, one of the most difficult – but necessary – things to do in any classroom) to better meet their needs. Then, time, effort, and energy for true learning disabled kids can be spent where it needs to be, rather than funding students thru IDEA that simply need more foundational support to overcome their learning deficits. I think of the case of one of my students, who has TRUE cognitive issues and writes and reads on a first grade level at 16. he can articulate orally very well, and respond to things verbally. But, he cannot write sentences of his thoughts and transfer them to paper (they look like gibberish). He is SPED, but in a regular ed class with another writing resource class attached. I had to modify all of my written assignments for him, because it takes him an hour to write a paragraph. Yet, I could not get him the funding he needed to attend a special school that can help him overcome his learning disabilities, and his mother did not understand the system enough to argue with the district. Thus, he will languish and not be able to survive if he is not given the education he needs to even fill out a simple application for a job or house or loan. Sadly, his case is not the only one like this. I wonder, however, even with the critiques of IDEA…what would happen if there were NO LAW??? Wouldn’t our kids be even worse off than before??? One way to help with these issues is definitely smaller class sizes and teacher:student ratios. As before, my regular ed classes were over 50% SPED with inclusion, yet I had a SPED teacher working with me in them in order to meet the needs of the kids there who needed more one on one than a single teacher in front of 25 students. In one class where I did not have this teacher, I often severely struggled to get around to all the kids that needed my help for 5-20 minutes per assignment – even with their accommodations in place! In short, we need more manpower to fix this issue: more co-teachers, greater supportive services, more people trained on how to educate urban, poor parents to advocate for their kids so they get the services they deserve. Wealthy parents will always find a way to make it work for their kids, why should our parents not be able to do the same? IDEA also must be reworked to deal with the new times and greater numbers. Laws like that cannot remain stagnate, and they must evolve with the evolution of society. We must differentiate in OUR language between disability and deficit so that deficits are handled with proper supportive services, and disabilities are properly addressed and funded thru IDEA in the way they were originally intended to be.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

bankse 30 Jul 2007 18:24

Everyone brings up a lot of great points. There is a huge difference between a learning disability and having never received proper instruction. Too often, however, the two are grouped into the same category. Also, ericka makes a great point in saying that it is unfair and illogical to access the success of programs that are not receiving proper funding. In fact, based on conversations I've had with SPED department heads (one of which was from an EXTREMELY wealthy district), schools are more often than not fully aware that they are not serving their students properly. And while may departments are trying their best to change this, they often just don't have the funding to fully comply with IDEA stipulations. As a result, their best option is usually to hope that no one takes them to court. When this does happen, most cases are not even fought—the schools know they will loose and don't want to waste the time and money trying to defend themselves.

And while Tori talks about some students that desperately need more individualized services and are not receiving these (often because their parents are unable to effectively advocate), there is also a flip side to this. In very wealthy districts, there are cases of parents using IDEA to call for arguably unreasonable modifications and priveleges. A good example is when a parent from Connecticut read that students with autism often benefit from horseback riding. The parent then demanded that the school begin offering equestrian lessons for autistic students (this was a public school). The school eventually defeated this, but they have been forced to approve other, only slightly less unreasonable requests.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

bettieantrim 30 Jul 2007 20:13

Wow! I can see clearly the problems that can arise when children are given a “label”. I like reading over everyone’s ideas and view on Bolick’s article. It’s hard for me to grasp how “learning disabilities”, “special-needs”, “learning-disorders”, “specific learning disabilities” and “learning deficits” are different from each other. I wish terms didn’t have so many strings attached to it.

In my over-simplified view, if a child needs help in learning, we, as teachers and parents, should try to do our best to solve the problem. Whether or not Bulick believes his son to have a “symptom, not a disability” really shouldn’t matter. Teachers obviously recognized that his son had a problem and now the question is how to help the child with his problem.

Okay, I hate dealing with money and I realize that federally funded programs need to assign where money goes in a egalitarian way. Also, I am not justifying the idea that sophisticated parents manipulate the system and call their child ‘learning disabled’ so that the child has less homework. However, I agree with Bulick, that the term “specific learning disabilities” be erased from IDEA. Who cares about the terms, just get the child specific help that benefits him the most!

I also agree with Bulick in that IDEA’s finances could be spent in different ways. I would ask for more tutoring for children who are having difficulty, specific training for teachers to correctly identify students who need more help than just tutoring, more reading specialists to help educate teachers on the best practices of reading groups, and finally more special education teachers to be in general education classrooms.

I am interested in bankse’s statement that often special educators aren’t often fully aware that they are not serving their students properly. I feel as a general educator, I am supposed to let the sp.ed. teacher know when I think a student should be considered special ed. or not. In my school this process involves a group of administrators and teachers called the Student Support Team. Is this a universal part of D.C. public schools? If so, has it been able to solve any of the issues that occur within IDEA?

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

tbouldin 31 Jul 2007 22:37

I never believed that a learning deficit automatically translated to a disability. In fact, the term “learning deficit” provides a sense of hope for students. It suggests that these students will be able to catch up academically with extra help. In opposition, a learning disability suggests that the student will never catch up.
Throughout the school year, I stayed genuinely concerned about the lack of progress made by my students that were labeled as “special education” students. Though they were supposed to receive special services, they rarely received them. In addition, students and parents often had no idea as to what skill their child was lacking, or what their child should be practicing.
Because I teach at a school where the population is 100% African American I can I cannot comment on a disproportionate number of African American males labeled as special education. Even still, this past year I was assigned to a special education inclusion homeroom class. Of 25 students, nine were labeled as special education students, and eight were males. For the first two month there was no inclusion teacher, and having no access to IEP’s I had to guess as to which students were the special education students. For that two-month period, everyone did the same level of work (except for two students who informed me that they typically were helped, one male and one female). All of them were held to high standards and all of them produced good work. When an inclusion teacher finally came and identified each student, those identified students suddenly began to rely on the inclusion teacher, and seemed not to try as hard. Therefore, some labeled students may not particularly need the help as mentioned in the article, but appreciate and take advantage of a decreased workload.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

kamilah dixon 31 Jul 2007 23:15

I like many of us here have certain parts of the article that I agree with and others that I do as much. I think the author does a good job of pointing out the problmes of the special education program as it exists in public education. While it is easy to reflect on the students who are mislabeled, what about the students that genuinely need the services that special education is supposed to provide. I know in the high school where I taught, the special education program was atrocious and was only present during disclipinary hearings to dissuade students from being expelled.

One of the largest disservices that occurred in the special education department in my school was that accomodation for standardized tests including the PSAT were never done consitently. The coordinator argued that it was not her responsibility. With a broken system it is obvious how the author can feel the way he does about the system. The part of the article that strucj me the deepest was the commentary on the behavior standards for students in the special education program. My first year of teaching I was consistently harrassed by a student who was not in my classroom who threatened to beat me up and shoot me. When the student was apprehended his special education teacher advocated for him only to allow the studnet to walk the halls for the rest of the year.

I am not against special education at all, but I think that there needs to be more accountability for the way the program runs to ensure that students are learning and receiving the help that they truly need.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

nthusseini 02 Aug 2007 21:20

I apologize for only now adding on to many of the Group 2 forum discussion! I was out of the country without internet access for a few weeks. Anyhow, there really is a lot of interesting points raised in this conversation and I’m going to try to address a few of them below.

First—deficit vs. disability?
I agree with bettieantrim that there are just too many terms that I cannot keep straight! And when it comes to learning deficit vs. disability, my very inexperienced opinion is that there cant be that much of a difference, if any at all. I think many of you raise a good point that a learning deficit should not be confused with poor previous instruction. Another person mentioned that while there are some deficits, something like dyslexia would be considered a disability because it is lifelong. The bottom line is that no matter what you call it, a student is going to be lumped into the same categories and experience the same stereotypes.

Second—class size?
I agree with Emily G. that class size is a huge factor in a teacher’s ability to provide necessary accommodations, however, Will Hale’s point that every class has its own personality is also well made. I know that, at least for me, smaller class size has made a huge impact on my effectiveness as a teacher. In smaller classes I can provide more individualized attention to students, build stronger relationships with students, and just simply “see” my students better because I just have more time to pay attention to them. But I don’t know if the issue of class size is really address Bolick’s concerns about IEDA as a whole. Perhaps the connection we could make between class size and the article is that if the federal government spent less time paying attention to process and more time focusing on “what works” then maybe we wouldn’t be in the educational mess we’re in already (but I think Emily G already said that!)

Third—author bias

I really appreciated dgordon bringing up the issue of the author’s agenda. I did not know anything about Clint Bolick’s background and your analysis really connected the dots for me. In the end of the article Bolick basically says he wants less federal involvement, more states rights etc etc. I agree that the current special education system is bias against students of color and can also be a system easily manipulated by those who know how to “work the system.” However, students with learning disabilities are so often given the bottom of the barrel when it comes to quality of instruction and level of expectations. I’d be nervous to allow states or school districts to proceed with special education on their own will without any outside regulation. I’m not sure what the answer is but I don’t think allowing there to be MORE inconsistency in how the country determines a child’s special ed status is a good idea. We are trying to STANDARDIZE our national education system and decentralizing it may just make things worse.

Re: Group Two Discussion on Special Education in Public School

torib3a 03 Aug 2007 14:59

The quality of the discussion continues, and I want to add and respond to something bankse said earlier. The case you talk of, of the wealthy school district and the parent of the kids with autism trying to get horseback riding paid for by the school: RIDICULOUS!!!!! That, to me, is such an egregious violation of respect for the law and its intent that it makes by head spin. To take advantage of a system that already struggles to meet the needs of our kids, especially when you are in a wealthy district with money yourself, is atrocious and embarrassing.
In answer to Naijla (spelling, sorry, I suck ), I agree that we need to be ever so careful of labels we put on our kids, given that, as long as they are even in the arena of SPED, learning disabled, learning challenged, learning deficit, they will suffer a stigma and be the victim of stereotyping, as few people gather the nuances between the words, continually lumping all students with exceptionalities into a few mass groups. I have to admit that, before this class, my only exposure to special learners were the kids still tracked to be in regular English classes. Thus, while they suffer from mild MR, ADD/ADHD, and a combination of language, visual, and emotional disorders, I was ignorant of deep differences among them all, especially in regard to instructing those students. In retrospect, this is really a class – especially in dc since we do inclusion – should be offered early on in our courses so that we can use the knowledge base to aid our instruction!!!