in Issues Special Education Policy 1 Running Head: ISSUES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION POLICY
From Access to Accountability: Issues in Special Education Policy Kristine Neuber George Mason University EDUC 844 Dr. Mark Goor May 9, 2005
Issues in Special Education Policy 2 This country was founded on an idea; all citizens have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This statement goes further as it relates to education in the 14th amendment which states, in part, that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law. (U.S. Constitution) I sit here today, a person with a disability, living my dream of independence and contribution, the beneficiary of special education in the United States. When I began my schooling in 1973 there were laws, specifically, The Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 91-230) passed in 1970, which ensured my right to be educated. (CEC, 2003). Laws and policies have continued to be added to ensure that all people with disabilities were provided with a free and appropriate education. In recent years the trend in special education has moved from one of inclusion of all students with disabilities to one of increasing accountability, most notably with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), for all student learning. This trend, while appropriate and welcome has caused several concerns (Sorrels, Rieth, & Sindelar, 2004). This paper will discuss this current trend first with a brief history of special education law effecting elementary and secondary school age children. Second, the issues related to providing a free and appropriate education and the push for increasing accountability for students with disabilities will be detailed. Finally, a look into where legislation, related to the field of special education is headed in light of the current political culture. In 1954, Brown v. the Board of Education was a civil rights case which stated that a separate education for minority students was not equal and ordered schools to be integrated. This case paved the way for similar laws relating to students with disabilities. (Pardini, 2002). Two landmark cases that followed Brown v. The Board of Education changed the landscape for students with disabilities they were Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v.
Issues in Special Education Policy 3 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1971 and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 1972. These cases established that the responsibility of the states and local school districts to educate individuals with disabilities is derived from the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (CEC, 2003) Even with this declaration, congress determined that children with disabilities were not receiving an appropriate education. In 1975 The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA P.L. 94.142) was passed and included a statement that all students would receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. The legislation included funding to help with the cost to special education programs. (CEC, 2003) In 1990 P.L. 94.142 was reauthorized the Individuals with disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and strengthened the requirement of an IEP or Individualized Education Plan for each student in special education. This was the first step towards not just inclusion of students with disabilities in education, but also a measure of accountability for what the school district would teach each child. The IDEA was reauthorized in 1997 and again in 2004 (Pardini, 2004). In the most recent version of the law the trend for increased accountability continues. IDEA 2004 includes a standard that requires all special education teachers be highly qualified which is defined by the following criteria: All special education teachers must hold a bachelors degree, have full certification in Special Education, or pass a state special education licensure exam and demonstrate subject knowledge in any subject area they teach. Another example of increased accountability is the new requirement to report progress of students to parents on a quarterly basis (CEC, Summary) It was the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 that began some of the discussions and apparent conflicts between federal laws affecting all students including those with disabilities in
Issues in Special Education Policy 4 American schools and the laws policies affecting students with disabilities. In 2001 congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. This act is a revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. (Kafer, 2004) The ESEA was enacted to provide assistance to school districts to bridge the achievement gap of students of limited means. In 1994 it was amended to include many of the standards we see today in No Child Left Behind. The 1994 amendment titled Improving American Schools Act, required individual states to develop and deliver standardized tests and show that their schools were making adequate yearly progress (AYP). However, the standards set forth in the Improving Americas Schools Act were rarely enforced and deemed ineffective. In 2002, the passage of No Child Left Behind tightened the standards established in the amendments of 1994. It grouped students by race, gender, English language proficiency, disability and socio-economic level and expected each group to show AYP in order for the school to receive a passing grade (Kafer, 2004). Many opponents to the No Child Left Behind Act say that it is unfair to students with disabilities and even contradictory to established laws and policies that guide the education of students with disabilities. The most prominent of the concerns relates to the perceived contradiction between Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the requirement of adequate yearly progress for all students, including those with disabilities. The first major federal challenge to the NCLB Act was filed on February 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, by Ottawa Township, High School District 140. The Ottawa High School along with its co plaintiffs have been placed in needs improvement status under NCLB after its special education subgroups failed to make AYP. They believe that the requirement of NCLB for the special education subgroup to make AYP is contradictory to the requirement to provide an individualized education plan for each
Issues in Special Education Policy 5 student in special education. One of the districts concerns, based on the lawsuit Statement of Claim, is that the school district was required to adjust the IEPs of the students in the special education subgroup in order to address the deficiency to in meeting the state standards under NCLB. (Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 141 v. U.S. Department of Education, 2005). It is clear in IDEA that the purpose of the IEP is to provide an individualized plan for each student tailored to their needs. They believe that these NCLB requirements are a violation of the rights afforded to students with disabilities under the IDEA. Finally they claim that significant harm to individual students within the special education subgroup will result if their IEPs are altered and amended for the sole purpose of meeting NCLBA requirements; such action would ignore the individual needs stemming from the individual students disabilities and fail to focus on meaningful and realistic goals, programming and services. (Board of Education of Ottawa Township High School District 141 v. U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The case has not yet been resolved. Many people believe that the accountability measures are in No Child Left Behind are a positive step towards equality for students with disabilities. Christine Wolfe, director of policy for the U.S. Department of Education in the Office of the Undersecretary stated, The aim is to help ensure these kids are not just disregarded by the school districts. Once you put high standards in place, you see achievement gains (Toomer- Cook, 2003. p.1). Also, in a white paper by Gloeckler and Draggett they point out that, Students with disabilities have finally been recognized as a group who, in many cases, could and should be able to meet standards (p. 2). The movement toward common accountability standards for all students aid in moving special education from a place to a service. Although many educators believe in the increased accountability for special education students, the way in which they are implemented are
Issues in Special Education Policy 6 troublesome as noted in the Ottawa case above. NCLB makes provisions for students who, based on the nature and severity of their disability can take an alternative assessment. Gloeckler and Draggett go on to say, the issue educators have with this concession is the fact that the legislation has set a hard percentage on the number of students within a district that can take the alternate assessment, without considering the make up of a schools population of students. The percentage is set at one percent, based on the Department of Educations calculation of the incidence rate for severe mental retardation. (Toomer-Cook, 2003). There are additional concerns about alternate assessments that go beyond just the number of students eligible to take them. Teachers and administrators are concerned with the time it takes to develop and administer alternative assessments to students with severe disabilities. In a recent Washington Post article, teachers in Anne Arundel County Schools Maryland voiced their concern about this issue. One special education teacher noted that she spent 30 hours administering an alternative assessment to a student believed to be at a developmental level of three months. The assessment consisted of 10 academic tasks in both reading and math. In the same report, other teachers report that it has taken them 40, 80 and even 100 hours to complete assessments for students with severe disabilities. Special educators contend that the statewide tests used to comply with NCLB are designed for students who are learning reading and math. Many of their students IEPs focus on functional skills like communicating wants and needs, toileting and dressing. Some parents have expressed that they do not see the point in testing these children in reading and math. Special educators are concerned that the students with the smallest stake in No Child Left Behind spend the most time meeting its requirements (de Vise, 2005).
Issues in Special Education Policy 7 Questions about the validity of the alternative assessments have also arisen. An eleventh grader who is blind, non-verbal, cannot independently use the bathroom and is unable to move her arms without help was rated proficient on the alternate assessment. This is problematic because teachers admit that they are permitted to, when necessary, move a childs hand to the correct answer. In another example, a teacher reported that she spent an hour a day between the months of October and March administering an assessment to three students. The testing included providing video tapes and binders for each student detailing their mastery of tasks. She admitted that she retested students on each objective until they reached a level of 80 percent mastery. Due to the nature of their disabilities, they often could not repeat that level of proficiency the next day (de Vise, 2005). How else should we provide accountability for students with disabilities? The jury is still out. Many people believe that an imperfect system is better than no system at all. The No Child Left Behind Act is not only increasing standards of accountability for students, it also increases accountability teachers. for NCLB, like IDEA 2004 requires that special education teachers be highly qualified. To be considered highly qualified under NCLB a teacher must have the following credentials: (1) a bachelors degree, (2) full state certification, as defined by the state, and (3) demonstrated competency in each core academic subject taught. (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) Most people would agree that it is important to ensure that all teachers are well trained and prepared to teach the subjects for which they are assigned. Who can argue with the idea of having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom? However, there are many concerns with this mandate. Much of the debate falls within the answers to two questions (1) What constitutes a highly qualified special education teacher, and (2) is the timeline
Issues in Special Education Policy 8 realistic considering the number of teachers who do not currently meet the standard and the shortage of special education teachers in the United States today? Special educators are required to draw upon many skills that fall outside of direct instruction in order to educate students with special needs. For example, they may need to help a child with Attention Deficit Disorder maintain his attention on the topic at hand, while at the same time continually monitor the behavior of a student with significant emotional issues. Special education teachers get specialized training in techniques to help students with a variety of disabilities. These techniques take time and experience to master. Teachers must institute these techniques while at the same time teach core academic skills. It is an intricate juggling game. If one ball is dropped it can and will effect the whole classroom environment. With this juggling act in mind, does it make sense to adhere to strict guidelines to determine if a special education teacher is highly qualified? Some special education teachers who are skilled and have been teaching for ten years or more are not considered highly qualified because they majored in special education rather than a discipline such as English or Science (Samuels, 2005). At the same time, some advocates for students with special needs are concerned that the current legislation could allow people with limited or no experience working with students with disabilities to become highly qualified simply by passing a state-credited test (Samuels, 2005). NCLB does allow special education teachers to continue to teach in academic areas if they are teamed with highly qualified teachers in the core curriculum area. Also, to alleviate concerns of veteran teachers who do not wish to take a test or go back to school, states are developing what is called HOUSSE or High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation. Under the NCLBA, states can use HOUSSE to evaluate teachers. States can give credit to veteran teachers through a combination of experience in the classroom, professional training
Issues in Special Education Policy 9 opportunities and leadership activities. California is one of 30 states that provide teachers a variety of ways to gain highly qualified status through the HOUSSE system. It has assigned point values to areas such as years of experience teaching (counts for up to 50 points), professional development (5 points for every 20 hours of training), direct observation, even lesson plans. Teachers earning at least 100 points obtain a rating of highly qualified. However, many states still have not developed HOUSSE for teachers who teach multiple subjects (Samuels, 2005). This leads us to the next issue of realistic timelines for certification. The NCLBA requires that all teachers be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. This leaves very little time for teachers to obtain highly qualified status through the options available to them. According to a report from congress, prepared by the Government Accountability Office, special educators are having difficulty reaching the qualifications under No Child Left Behind due in part to the lack of coordination at the federal level (Davis, 2004). The report goes on to say that thousands of special educators are not taking the steps needed to comply with the new law. Troy Justensen, acting deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), was quick to add that the majority of states already meet the NCLBA standards. He strongly disagreed with the claim that the office has not provided support. The report states that special education teachers who are assigned to core academic subjects may not have the certification required by the end deadline. Currently there are six million students with disabilities receiving services and 400,000 special education teachers teaching in the public schools today. It is expected that there will be 69,000 job openings for special education teachers in the next school year (Davis, 2004). In Gwinnett County Public Schools, Georgia, there is a need for 1,000 new teachers. They have had great difficulty locating qualified teachers in all areas with increased difficulty finding teachers in
Issues in Special Education Policy 10 special education. In the 2001-02 school year, Gwinnet County hired 13,084 new teachers only 21.9 percent came from in state schools. The difficulty in finding teachers in the area of special education, speech and language pathology, mathematics, science and foreign language has forced them to broaden their search from national to international. In the last school year they recruited teachers from India. Twenty-six offers were made to teachers from India in the area of special education. (Davis, 2004) With the increasing shortage of special education teachers in the United States, can we afford to prevent experienced teachers from teaching in the classroom based on strict criteria and timelines? The No Child Left Behind Act is still in its infancy. It is constantly evolving to address the legitimate concerns of educators, parents, advocates and policy makers. On April 7, 2005, Secretary of Education Spelling announced a new common sense approach to the No Child Left Behind Act. In her speech she called it Raising Achievement: A New Path for No Child Left Behind. This new path addresses some of the issues raised in this paper, but Spellings is clear in her assertion that some requirements of the law are non-negotiable. Annual testing to demonstrate student achievement, reporting results of testing by subgroups and ensuring that students are taught by highly qualified teachers, are areas that will not be compromised. Under this new approach states will be given more flexibility in reaching the goals set in the NCLBA and will be given credit for the progress they have made. They will also have access to additional funds and tools to help they become fully compliant. Beyond a general increase in flexibility, significant changes have been made in the area of assessment. (ED.gov, 2005, Secretary) The changes to the assessment requirements revolve around students with special needs. States will now be able to deve...