Policy Brief: Education and Disabilities
Policy Issue
Over the past few decades special education and individualized education programs (IEPs) have been incorporated into the United States’ education system for Kindergarten through 12th grade to support youth with learning disabilities. Federally mandated special education may be new to the United States, having come into existence in the early 1900s, but people with disabilities have existed in every era and society (LaNear & Frattura, 2007). While there is certainly a need for educational supports among this population, the United Sates has a fractured system among its 50 States and not even the bare minimum of special educational needs is being met for students with learning disabilities. In fact, it is projected that over half of the States are deficient in their special education requirements (Diament, 2018).
LaNear and Frattura (2007) highlighted several pitfalls of current special education policies and ideologies, namely that current policy merely references inclusion to appease the ‘other’ (children with disabilities) without concrete methods to support these youth. Even if full integration is achieved in schools, such that youth with disabilities learn alongside neurotypical youth in the general classroom, there runs the risk of blaming disadvantaged youth for poor test scores, overwhelmed teachers in the classroom who specialize in general pedagogy rather than special education, and wrongly using standardized tests to gauge nonstandard students (LaNear & Frattura, 2007). As noted by Kauffman et al (2018), educational inclusion does not serve the interests of or properly support each and every youth with disabilities.
Some of the discontinuity of services may be linked to disproportionate financial allocation among the states for special education. Special education spending falls into one or more of seven categories: Multiple Student Weights System, Single Student Weight System, Census-Based System, Resource-Allocation Model, Reimbursement System, Block Grant, and High-Cost Students System (Parker, 2019). With so many different combinations on how and where to fund supports for children with learning disabilities, it is no wonder that some states have more adequate special education programs than others. There are issues that go even deeper than funding disparities, though.
There is also a history of disparity regarding Black children in special education among U.S. schools. Namely, there is overrepresentation of Black or African American children enrolled in special education programs across the U.S. and this phenomenon has received limited and ineffective responses to date (Cavendish et al, 2018; Ford & Russo, 2016). In short, America’s education system is failing to fully serve and support students with learning disabilities. I would like to propose policy changes that will help unify special education efforts across the Unites States, which will promote streamlined funding allocation and reduce racial discrimination within the special education system.
Human Rights Violations
The insufficient and fractured special education system in the United States is an issue of equal access to education, as well as hosts a human rights violation through discrimination. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all people are born free with equal dignity and right, including the right to free education during fundamental stages of development that promotes full growth of personality and respect of human rights (United Nations, 1948). While special education is free to the student, evidence shows that it is not fully supportive of the developmental needs of youth with intellectual disabilities (Diament, 2018).
Children with learning disabilities also face discrimination and challenges with inclusion (Francisco, Hartman, & Wang, 2020; LaNear & Frattura, 2007). Even as children with disabilities learn in general classrooms with neurotypical students and are supported with IEPs, they likely experience negative interactions with peers due to their disabled label. Furthermore, the discrimination through overrepresentation of Black children in special education is a human rights violation that needs to be actively addressed.
Analysis of Policies
Policy around educational supports for those with learning disabilities have come a long way, but there is more that can and should be done. In the United States during the early 1800s, children with learning disabilities did not attend school with neurotypical children, but rather had nonexistent supports and that slowly changed with the development of mental hospitals, reform schools, and other specialized disability institutions (Special Ed News, 2020). There was then a shift in ideology and mandates from separate schools to integrated but separate education, which continued the legacy of exclusion and “othering” of youth with disabilities (Francisco et al, 2020). In the late 1800s to early 1900s, as laws requiring school attendance were passed, so too were laws that excluded children with disabilities from required attendance and some laws even allowed exclusion from general classrooms, such as the case of Beattie v. Board of Education (Francisco et al, 2020; LaNear & Frattura, 2007).
The 1950s and 1960s gave rise to advocates, particularly parents, for special education and inclusion which in turn encouraged the US Government to promote and fund special education, with Brown vs. The Board of Education in 1954 marking a significant judicial victory towards racial equality and paving the way for policies on special education inclusion (Francisco et al, 2020; LaNear & Frattura, 2007). In the 1970s, court cases Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania and Mills v. the Board of Education in the District of Columbia concluded that children with mental handicaps, ages 6 to 21, can be educated in a program similar to regular students and provided free public education, and the resulting rulings promoted the enactment of the Public Law 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), such that all children had the right to free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Francisco et al, 2020).
While not a US policy, the full inclusion movement (FIM) took root in the 1990s as an international movement towards inclusion of all students in the general classroom and has influenced current practices for special education (Kauffman et al, 2018; 2020). FIM has received much criticism from educational researchers and it seems to be an extreme alternative to the full exclusion that marked the 1800s. Kauffman and fellow researchers (2018) proposed moving toward a middle ground between exclusion and inclusion of children with disabilities in general classrooms, such that it is not so much about where the students learn (e.g. in class with neurotypicals or in their own classroom) but rather the importance of instruction quality and supports.
Since 1975, states and school districts have had to comply with the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], formerly known as EAHCA (Parker, 2019). IDEA is the current reigning champion of special education mandates, covering services related to early intervention and special education to over 7.5 million youth with disabilities as of 2018 (US DOE, 2020). As of 2017, IDEA mandates IEPs and placement in the least restrictive environment, such as the general classroom (Kauffman et al, 2018). Yet, IDEA does not cover all youth with disabilities and neglects to address overrepresentation of Black youth in special education programs (Cavendish et al, 2018; Ford & Russo, 2016; Special Ed News, 2020). Moreover, the movement towards full inclusion (FIM) has largely promoted only complying with the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement while simultaneously ignoring FAPE, the IEPs, and a continuum of alternative placements (CAP) (Kauffman et al, 2020).
To date, the United States school system is mandated by IDEA to provide free, inclusive education to youth with disabilities but has failed in over half the States to meet bare minimum requirements (Diament, 2018; Parker, 2019). The happy medium proposed by Kauffman and others (2018) has not been achieved. Not to mention, racial overrepresentation has not been adequately addressed (Cavendish et al, 2018; Ford & Russo, 2016). Therefore, I would like to propose a shift in policy on special education to remediate these issues.
Proposed Changes
My proposal focuses on two major issues, namely finding the middle ground between full educational inclusion and exclusion, as well as reducing the prevalence of Black youth’s overrepresentation in special education. According to a 2018 report from the US Department of Education, New York was among States that needed assistance with implementing IDEA regulations to their full capacity. A key advocacy group emerged to answer that call of unmet educational needs, Advocates for Children (AFC). I take my cues from this group and believe their suggestion will put the US education system on a better track to fulfill the needs and rights of students with disabilities.
While AFC (n.d.) is New York specific, I would like to encourage all 50 States to adopt AFC’s proposed policy changes, which promote: (1) Improved educational programs, opportunities, and outcomes for students from disadvantaged or vulnerable families and youth with disabilities; as part of improved education for special needs students, schools must relinquish the need for absolute and full inclusion (Kauffman et al, 2018); (2) positive approaches to discipline that reduce disparities in suspension rates; (3) school stability for students, (4) access to high-quality early childhood education programs and services (5) multiple pathways to high school graduation, including paths that do not rely on high-stakes standardized testing, (6) parent empowerment so all parents can participate meaningfully in their children’s education, and (7) protection from discrimination for students in public schools and charter schools; this must include improved and culturally relevant testing for disabilities in order to reduce overrepresentation of Black children in special education (GAO, 2018). By focusing on supporting these seven domains, particularly 1 through 5, the States can streamline their special education funding in the same places and then provide consistent special educational supports across State borders.
In conjunction with AFC’s proposals, federal policies must also include mandates for promoting family involvement and respect for diverse backgrounds, culturally relevant curriculums, and instruction that builds on student strengths, as well as guidelines for school districts on building the capacity of in-school student support personnel in order to minimize overrepresentation of Black youth in special education (Warger and Burnette, 2000). I believe that striving to incorporate and implement the above suggestions for current policies on special education is the right step towards a better future for the youth of America.
References
Advocates for Children of New York [AFC]. (n.d.). Policy: Policy Agenda https://www.advocatesforchildren.org/policy_and_initiatives
Cavendish, W., Connor, D., Gonzalez, T., Jean-Pierre, O., & Card, K. (2018). Troubling “The Problem” of racial overrepresentation in special education: a commentary and call to rethink research. Educational Review,72(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1550055
Diament, M. (2018). When It Comes to Special Ed, States Largely Deficient. Disability Scoop. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2018/07/25/when-sped-states-largely-deficient/25317/
Ford, D. Y. & Russo, C.J. (2016). Historical and Legal Overview of Special Education Overrepresentation: Access and Equity Denied. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 16(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.5555/2158-396X.16.1.50
Francisco, M.P.B., Hartman, M., Wang, Y. (2020). Inclusion and Special Education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090238
Kauffman, J.M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., & Hallenbeck, B.A. (2020). Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past, Exceptionality, DOI: 10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326
Kauffman, J.M, Felder, M., Ahrbeck, B., Badar, J., Schneiders, K. (2018). Inclusion of All Students in General Education? International Appeal for A More Temperate Approach to Inclusion. Division of International Special Education and Services, 21(2), 1–10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198904.pdf
LaNear, J. & Frattura, E. (2007). Getting the stories straight: allowing different voices to tell an “effective history” of special education law in the United States. Education & the Law, 19(2), 87–109. DOI: 10.1080/09539960701547750
Parker, E. (2019). 50-State Comparison: K-12 Special Education Funding. Education Commission of the United States. https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-k-12-special-education-funding/
Special Education News (2020, Nov 22). The History of Special Education in the United States. Special Ed News. http://www.specialednews.com/
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
United States Department of Education [US DOES]. (2018). 2018 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/ideafactsheet-determinations-2018.pdf
United States Department of Education [US DOE]. (2020). IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
United States Government Accountability Office [GAO]. (2013). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: standards needed to improve identification of racial and ethnic overrepresentation in special education: report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652437.pdf#?
Warger, C. L., & Burnette, J. (2000). Five strategies to reduce overrepresentation of culturally & linguistically diverse students in special education [microform]. Reston, VA : ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, the Council for Exceptional Children.
