Posted on November 12, 2013 with updated changes by Nancy Bailey
I heard someone, a parent or teacher, blurt out at an informal education meeting that education reformers are afraid of special education. I think that person is right. Many of those currently in charge of condemning public schools don’t understand anything about students with disabilities and how they learn.
They must know they are infuriating a lot of parents who have atypical students at both ends of the continuum. In the context of calculating costs and emphasizing student success on test scores, students with disabilities, and gifted and talented students, are a thorn in the reformers side as they try to sell off America’s public schools.
For years special ed. programs were not funded as fully as they should have been especially in poor schools. Teachers struggled to address the needs of students in self-contained classrooms without much support. I remember being told that because I had a master’s degree in special education I would be allotted fewer resources. I received $30.00 for materials at the beginning of the year—if I was lucky.
However, in the background lurking, were those who wanted to cut costs further. One way to do this is to get rid of special ed. classes altogether and put all students with disabilities and gifted and talented students back into regular classes. For a while they got away with this.
But parents are not as naïve as some believe. Just ask Andrea Rediske who has been a tireless advocate with Ethan’s Bill in Florida, to get rid of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Andrea has a lot of friends who follow and support her cause.
The privatization enthusiasts market the idea that with the right kind of super teacher, every special need or disability can be fixed. And they claim students who are gifted or talented will get enrichment…whatever that is. All students, they tell us, can learn the same—Common Core State Standards will see to it.
In fact, here, in their words, all students with disabilities should take the same tests. No more modifications should be allowed. That, we are told, would be selling students with disabilities short.
They sell perfection like Professor Harold Hill sold music.
Like so much else in education, these changes in special education are coming about due to special ed. costs and the fact that education, in general, is messy. It doesn’t make for perfect sounding curriculum that churns out students who learn the same things the same way, which is what they need in their perfect for-profit schools.
Really, every child should be individually considered, but with the students who have special needs differences stand out more.
Thus far, education reformers have succeeded at twisting the special ed. conversation to make it work to damn public schools. Saying all students can learn the same way preys upon parents who want normalcy. Use high expectations as a theme, slowly get rid of special ed. teachers and classes, and make it look like the phase-out helps children. That’s how they work.
When really, and we already see it happening, students with disabilities, like ELL students, are pushed out altogether. Charter schools get away with not taking these students—they aren’t prepared to do the job—and then they can only exist if they are able to tout high test scores.
The ed. reformers like to also throw around the word “integration” when it comes to putting all students with disabilities into the regular classroom. Making them do everything like all the other students makes it sound like a civil rights issue. We all know that the Achilles heel of special education is labeling. But we could work on that and honestly improve the way students receive services.
How long will charter schools be able to get away with ignoring special education altogether?
Good teachers, the reformers insist, will succeed with these students. Even Teach for America is starting to direct its attention more to special education. What? Will they insist upon six weeks of training instead of five?
Parents of students with disabilities may have to pay to get real help for their students—but from where is anyone’s guess. Perhaps that in itself is the ultimate goal of the education reformers.
But it isn’t going to work.
Children who can mosey along and do O.K. on tests have Moms and Dads who are less inclined to question. They have no sense of urgency. But that is changing. A lot of parents around the country are angrier over high-testing than ever before, and parents of students with disabilities are angrier still.
Parents, all parents, are paying close attention. Many of them hate Common Core and they are watching their state legislatures like nobody’s business. They also want real credentialed special education teachers and regular teachers who plan to stay on the job and make it their career. Every parent, and especially parents of students with disabilities, know that the right kind of education for their child can mean the difference between a decent life and a life of destitution.
That’s why the person who said the ed. reformers were afraid of special education, I believe, got it right. If anyone will help to stop the draconian changes in our public schools it will be those parents.
I think it depends on the education reformer. Not all ed reformers want Common Core. (I do want the Smarter Balanced test, but I’ll get to later.) There are a lot of ed reformers who very much want to individualize and personalize education in a way that isn’t happening in most public schools. We are sick of the one-size-fits-all and expecting a teacher to differentiate for students from special needs or struggling to high ability or high achieving. We view the failure to be able to meet students at the tail ends of the curve as not a problem with teachers, but with district administration and policies, state and national obsession with benchmark tests, and a lack of openness from the schools.
District administration and policies usually don’t have any support in place for high ability students and support for special needs and struggling students varies considerably by district. They tell the teachers they are responsible for differentiating for all the students in their classroom, but don’t provide adequate tools and support structure. Many teachers appear to find this an impossible task, but what employee goes to their boss to report they can’t do a task that every other employee claims they can?
State and national tests are currently benchmark tests that measure proficiency for that grade level. When teachers are told they are rated on how many students attain proficiency, the most secure choice is to teach the students that need some help to become proficient and ignore the students that will never be proficient or are already proficient. The reason I want Smarter Balanced is because it can help measure growth. Ignoring students with disabilities or gifted and talented students will now show up in test results. Whether this will force schools to work with these kids or just allow parents to see how little growth is occurring remains to be seen, but I am optimistic that Smarter Balanced will be a far better test than current benchmark exams.
Some ed reformers are parents who simply want a seat at the table in determining their children’s education. Too many districts shut out parents in decision-making and only reveal what goes on behind closed doors when a new program is rolled out. Sure, the schools are willing to hand off areas to the PTA, but they are usually limited to extracurricular events, raising money, and advocating the administration’s agenda to legislators. But parents are shut out of the process of determining what kids will learn, how kids will learn, and what educational priorities should be.
While on my district’s Strategic Planning Committee, it appeared that almost every parent was an ed reformer and wanting some change. However, the changes wanted were diverse and there was not a huge block pushing for any particular area. Stifling the reform were the district administration and teachers. Any reform brings change and risk and change and risk are generally not welcome by any organization. When parents in our committee pushed for the term ‘individualized education’ in our goal, this was met by a middle school teacher who said there was no way she could individualize for each student, so the term – and the concept – were dropped as too difficult to achieve. And given the current structure and infrastructure, it may be an impossible goal. But is this current structure and infrastructure what should exist? Many ed reformers say no.
Hi Joshua,
Once again I appreciate your comment, and I understand what you mean by the use of the words “education reform.” Many have come to see those words, however, as representative of the undesired changes made to public schools today. I have seen education reform called “education deform” for example. Maybe that’s what I should have gone with.
In this case I just used ed. reformers with the assumption that people new I was referring to the people pushing high-stakes testing, CCSS, etc. I actually think public schools should always be changing and growing with parents and teachers as the ed. reformers as you state.
I am confused by your statement about Smarter Balanced since it is my understanding the assessment is aligned to the Common Core State Standards. I don’t understand why you like it if you don’t like the CCSS.
I am impressed that you have a Strategic Planning Committee that seems to work together so well. I’m sure all of you have a positive impact on the day-to-day school environment. Best.
I’m fairly indifferent on CCSS. I’ve already seen Michigan try several curriculum standards fads. What is one more that will last a few years and be replaced?
Whatever standards are in place will be tested. We can either go with the benchmark paper tests that push all kids to be the same level or an adaptive test that can provide information on growth.
I wish the Strategic Planning Committee worked well. In reality it was a rubber stamp for the district to say they had gathered the input of the community. They began with a survey which the committee ignored, wrote goals, and received community feedback on the goals which the committee was effectively told to ignore. The goals written were so nebulous that the administration can interpret them however they want and claim to be meeting them.
But Common Core is different because they were not field tested, they were put together by people who are not educators, and a lot of money has gone into making them the kind of standards that will be hard to get rid of. They also don’t give a bit of wiggle room to teachers who would like to address creativity in their classes. They are pretty scripted.
So I am rather surprised, since you care about gifted, that you are OK with CC. As standards go I think they do nothing to address the needs of gifted children–many people are worried that they are mediocre. Look how they are changing the SAT to align it with the CC.
The U.S. will probably never pass education reform that is good for gifted children. It seems like education reform is rarely written by teachers or parents. I’ve seen so much garbage legislation on education from both parties and it seems to be even worse when they combine, such as No Child Left Behind. But they have been consistent. They almost never provide anything for gifted children.
The closest I’ve seen in providing ed reform that helps gifted students has been by Michigan’s Gov. Rick Snyder and the Republicans. Some has gone through, such as Section 21f of the State School Aid Act that allows students to take up to two online classes per year. Much more has not passed, such as allowing gifted charter schools and requiring “Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace” programming. These have been fought hard by the public schools and killed.
There definitely is concern about CCSS and its impact on gifted students. But I don’t think it is significantly worse than the other bad legislation that has plagued gifted learners for the past forty years.
I believe this article is right on. As a mother of chidren who were gifted abd those that have learning disabilities. My children are adults now. School was not a place they wanted to be because they weren’t getting what they needed.
I don’t believe there is a teacher who can take care of individual needs if they have to develop a plan for both ends of the spectrum in each class.
Hi Pat,
Thanks for your comment. I agree pretty much. I believe there are some classes where children with varying abilities can come together and others where they might do better working with similar ability levels. And also smaller classes would help. Children are all so different. Take care.
This is why I, as a mother of a son with special needs, opted my son out of high stakes tests and test preparation and wrote a Guide to help all Case Conference Committee members opt special needs students out of high stakes test through the Notes section of I.E.P.s. We, parents of children with special needs, have power if we choose to exercise it. The question is will enough of us stand up for all children, not just our own?
I agree, Merry. It is great that you created that Guide! I take it the guide is on the National Opt Out site. Thanks for posting.