Parents around the country are angry, claiming that their children who have learning disabilities, namely dyslexia, are not being served in public schools. The question here is why aren’t public schools serving students with learning disabilities? Isn’t it the law?
Many parents expect inclusion in general education classes, although some argue for vouchers. Vouchers mean a child will likely go to a private or charter school that often does not involve inclusion and could include teachers with little preparation to teach students with learning disabilities.
But inclusion in public schools has not been without problems. It has not always meant that teachers will have preparation in learning disabilities, or that they will have support to teach students with learning disabilities in large diverse classes.
How did this come about?
Learning Disabilities and Dyslexia
Reports state that 1 in 5 children in the U.S. have learning disabilities like dyslexia or ADHD. Schools do not cause learning disabilities, but schools can go a long way to improve a student’s ability to learn.
In recent years, schools have relied on Response to Intervention, assessing students and placing them in Tiers to obtain what’s considered the best instruction. Some see this to deny students the special assistance they need. Others argue that RTI has never been fully funded.
Students have also been pushed to achieve unproven Common Core State Standards. Many of these standards, especially for young children, are developmentally inappropriate and could lead to reading difficulties.
Public Education’s Troubled Promise
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, or Public Law 94-142, was signed into law. President Ford shared concerns about funding special education. Most agree today, that special education hasn’t been well-funded. Here is some of President Ford’s statement.
Unfortunately, this bill promises more than the Federal Government can deliver, and its good intentions could be thwarted by the many unwise provisions it contains. Everyone can agree with the objective stated in the title of this bill — educating all handicapped children in our Nation. The key question is whether the bill will really accomplish that objective.
Even the strongest supporters of this measure know as well as I that they are falsely raising the expectations of the groups affected by claiming authorization levels which are excessive and unrealistic.
Special Education After PL 94-142
Despite President Ford’s concerns, school districts at that time created support services for students with disabilities. Students were offered a continuum of services.
When general education teachers became aware of students with reading difficulties, they referred students for special assessment to determine if learning disabilities were present. If a student was identified as having disabilities, they were placed in Resource Classes where they received one to two hours a day of remedial assistance. These classes were small and reading remediation involved individualization.
Teachers working with students who had learning disabilities had to have formal university preparation. School administrators strictly enforced this requirement. Most school districts also provided teachers with professional development in the latest reading programs for children with reading disabilities.
But policymakers and corporate reformers wanted to privatize public schools. They were not keen on funding such programs.
IDEA’s Broken Promise
In 1997, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act changed the original law, PL 94-142, to focus on inclusion. Parents were led to believe that individualized attention to their student’s disabilities was substandard, that students should always be in inclusion classes.
How did this happen?
In 1986, Madeleine Will, once married to conservative columnist George Will, became a leader in the Full Inclusion movement. As a parent of a child with Down syndrome, Will held a prominent, highly influential position in the Reagan administration. She wrote at that time, an article in Exceptional Children “Educating Children with Learning Problems: A Shared Responsibility.”
She stated:
Although well-intentioned, this so-called “pull-out” approach to the educational difficulties of students with learning problems has failed in many instances to meet the educational needs of these students and has created, however unwittingly, barriers to their successful education.
Not everyone agreed. University of Virginia education professor James Kauffman argued that the REI advocates used charged metaphorical language “rights without labels” and “excellence for all,” and even incorporated “racial integration” to claim that inclusion was best.
The late Bernard Rimland a psychologist and founder of the Autism Research Institute wrote in 1995 about his son who had autism.
He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods that would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
He added:
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable.
But Will and other parents and educators were on board for inclusion, and school privatization.
In 2001, she wrote the preface to Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. It was edited by three proponents of school privatization, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Andrew J. Rotherham, and Charles R. Hokanson, Jr. The document was funded by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. It pushed for funding cuts to special education and included support for vouchers.
IDEA 2004 and The Parental Dilemma
Since the last reauthorization which took place in 2004, we’ve seen changes in public schools, and school districts. Many parents recognize that students in general classes don’t get the support they need. IDEA doesn’t seem to have the teeth PL 94-142 once had to get students assistance.
General education teachers get broad preparation in special education in their universities and are expected to teach students with a wide range of differences, often in large classes.
Some parents reject special assistance and demand that all students get the same remedial reading program. They may turn to unproven digital instruction.
Teachers with huge class sizes might resort to a standardized reading approach, which is unfair to students who have different reading needs.
Other parents argue for vouchers to private and charter schools, what the privatizers want parents to do, and even though inclusion is often missing from these schools.
Some parents praise the benefits of a voucher or charter school, even though there’s no proof such a school is academically meeting the student’s needs. They believe their child is, if nothing else, finally getting the individual attention they need and deserve, exactly what was stolen from them through the IDEA reauthorizations in the public school setting.
References
James M. Kauffman,1989. “The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush Education Policy: A Trickle-Down Theory of Education of the Hard-to-Teach.” The Journal of Special Education. 23: 256–78.
Bernard Rimland, “Inclusive Education” Right For Some: In The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon, ed. James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. (Texas: Pro-Ed., 1995), 289-91.
Nancy Bailey, Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield) 79-83.
***In Misguided Education Reform: Debating the Impact on Students, Chapter 4 is “Special Education: Abandoned Commitment.” I outline history surrounding PL 94-142 and how reformers have continually chipped away at this law.
I am confused as to your association with privatization and inclusion. There may be some who are for school choice that also support inclusion; however, it has been my experience that most who are in favor of school choice are advocating choice because they desire to have more control over their children’s education. Whether or not good ole’ Chester Finn, et al. is in support of it has no bearing on their position. Thank you, though, for writing such an interesting piece. You do make very good points in regard to classroom dynamics.
Hi Laura, Thanks for your comment. I hope I can better explain.
Special education is a costly endeavor for public schools. When they offer services and follow IDEA, watered down from the original law but better than nothing, parents are satisfied with the services and protections their children receive in public schools.
When powerful groups and individuals work against public education to destroy the laws to have public schools provide these services, parents are driven to vouchers to charters, parochial, and private schools that are not held responsible for teaching students with disabilities. It is hit or miss. This is privatization.
The problem is that outside of public schools, most private and charters are unaccountable and parents, I would argue, really don’t have control. The school operators have control to admit or deny students, and many of these schools do not have inclusion, or they are unaccountable for a student’s success.
Charter schools are notoriously bad about admitting students with disabilities. Reading about the history and lawsuit in New Orleans provides interesting info. about this topic.
When the law isn’t followed, or it loses it’s teeth, as I believe happened with IDEA, parents become frustrated with the lack of attention to their child’s needs, they often find they have little recourse (most can’t afford to hire an attorney) to make the public school provide what they want. So a voucher sounds enticing. Or some parents will say they simply must settle for a charter or private school.
This is why some states with policymakers who want school privatization, push for special ed. vouchers first, like Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program. They know how parents with students who have disabilities are especially driven to get the services their children need. Parents do what they must to get their students what they think will be a better situation. Sometimes it might be better, but more often it isn’t.
Inclusion is very misunderstood by he general public. Couple this with the parental tendency to over-rate their child, and you have the failed process.
As you point out, inclusion looks very different in a class of 35 than it does in a class of 10-16, which you migt see in some places. The expectations of a parent who desperately hopes the child can be taught enough to survive are understandable, but most teachers do not have the time to individualize program for students with even the usual special need. I must admit that I feel woefully ill prepared to teach the special needs student, even though I have taken multiple classes and been to countless Inservice conferences designed to fill my head with ideas.
The majority of sessions I have attended concerning those with diagnosed learning problems have centered on attempting to instill empathy in me. I can assure the reader that I am filled with empathy beyond the normal human being. What I need is someone who will tell me how to help someone who cannot read or recall what they have read. I need mountains of time. I need technical assistance.
But even with that, it is difficult to help,someone with person to person contact.
Thank you, RT, for such a candid comment. I think many teachers agree that instruction in how to have empathy is not what they need to learn. And while additional classes and in-service is expected, there is no single method that works with all children. Teachers need time and collaboration with other professionals to provide the best instruction Great points.
Then you have schools, districts, and states that discourage the use of the term, “dyslexia” because they’re avoiding adding to their special education roles, to save money and to keep percentages lower to avoid an audit. My experience in the SW is this.
If we teach all students as if they all have dyslexia, all students will benefit. However, teacher training and most literacy curricula do not do this. There are excellent curricula that can do this, but schools don’t always invest in them.
When a teacher has 25-30 students in elementary, and often at least one is disruptive, it leaves very little time to give individual attention to anyone. Class sizes must be smaller, and disruptive students supported, if students with exceptionalities are to benefit!
Charter school teachers in Arizona do not have to be certified like those in public schools. New Mexico requires certification. It’s state by state.
And now, adults on the autism spectrum are saying they didn’t make friends in general education classes, were stigmatized, misunderstood by peers, and were lonely. Those in special classes were better able to make friends with others on the spectrum, because they understood each other and had opportunity to meet. It’s sad we are dooming so many to loneliness. I find these kids would usually benefit from smaller classes, quieter environments, and direct instruction in social emotional skills. They cannot get enough of this in large general education classes.
Parents also need to obtain services in the community. Schools cannot provide all the OT, PT, speech, mental health, social skills training, and other therapies needed for success. Parents need to stop expecting schools to do everything their kids require. Teachers cannot recommend this because it puts districts at financial risk. So, if your child has an IEP, you probably need to reach out to private providers to see about additional services that you take them to every week. Insurance often covers it. I did this with my own children with autism and it was very beneficial.
You make some excellent points here. Thank you so much for commenting.
Parents need to understand what a disability is s do generl and special education teachers. It is the inbility to do school work and labor work to some degree a it’s legal definiitons. These inclusionist cults are making the problem worse for everybody because they got rid of specialized schools for the moderate to severe disabled like Willembuirg in San Pedro California ( my mother worked their for years). I am a ticked off former special education student myself and I curse at the inclusionist that made my life heck and made me un prepared for the workforce and the bureaucracy of the Vocational Rehabilitation departments that believe a nominaln part time job is a success even if that person losses said job or is still on partil SSDI. this is like how inclusionist believe a struggling child is a success as long a she is in an inclusive clssroom.
Thank you, Will. I’m sorry and hope you can find a job that you like. Some community colleges might have programs that offer job preparation. I appreciate your comment. Stay in touch.
I did try community college and was not successful at it. The suposed program to help those with “autism” called “College 2 Career’ at the regional centers in California refused to help me by denying me entrance into their program. Autism has an increasingly liberal definition thanks to DSM IV AND V. I graduated High school as most with “disabilities” did not ,but that did not prepare me for work and adult thans to thiose inclusionist fanatics and their forced mainstreaming.
I’m a recently retired school psychologist of 32 years. I just discovered your site today through a Facebook link and I appreciate your blog, article, and comments.
I feel that special education was a noble experiment for all the reasons already listed and more.
There are at least six (probably more) definitions of learning disabilities and various models to assess them, including but not limited to discrepancy models, Response to Intervention (RtI), Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses (PSW), neurological approaches, clinical (DSM/psychiatric), full inclusion, rights without labels, and other mutations utilized around the USA and the world.
Although everyone has his or her own definition, nobody (including myself) really knows what a learning disability is. The eligibility decision at IEP meetings often comes down to the bad mood of the vice principal.
There is no real scientific evidence to support the view that learning disabilities even exist, although we have found reliable and valid ways to measure this invalid psychological construct.
Likewise, to this day there is no real evidence that ADHD exists, yet (depending on whose stats we believe) 10-20% of American boys have been diagnosed with it and placed on medications by the clinical field. My real-life experiences suggest most of these boys just don’t like their teachers (or their parents don’t like the teacher), or they don’t like school or homework, or are being bullied, or [fill in the blank]. It’s interesting that almost all ADHD students have no problem sitting down and concentrating on their favorite video game for six hours straight every evening.
In the old days (yes, I’m old, I admit it) you could line up a hundred psychologists and every one of them would agree whether or not a student was autistic. Then the definition of autism changed. Now everyone is on the spectrum. It’s no longer a question of “if” the student is autistic but rather, “to what extent?” Mild, moderate, severe, or profound. Given the new premise that almost everyone is at least mildly autistic what should the school do for them? Put 90% of the population into a special education class? That’s certainly not feasible but we’re left with a high percentage of the population feeling they were not diagnosed or treated appropriately in the schools because they were “on the spectrum” [like the rest of us]. You have friends, you’re passing your classes, you’re on the basketball team, what do you want us to do to help?
Advocates and lawyers (and politicians) are ever present and the stated or unstated agenda at many meetings is, “You better call my child autistic (or ADHD, dyslexic, learning disabled, etc.) or we’re going to court. I don’t know how things turned so upside down that so many want to be considered disabled. Maybe they think they’ll get reduced homework assignments or something. Don’t get me wrong – there are humans with true disabilities and they are my heroes – they have provided much inspiration to me in my life as they fight to overcome real-life struggles. I became a special educator to serve students with real disabilities – I’ve never believed in inventing disabilities – yet there is always much pressure to do so (as if that would change anything except provide the parents with an explanation or excuse why their child got the F in math).
I guess I won’t rant about more personal and hidden agendas present at IEP meetings.
Schools unfortunately remain a battleground for political wars and our children are being used as political pawns. Most parents are trying their best but they read things on the internet and talk to their neighbors. It’s pretty sad because education remains a noble field. Although we are specifically addressing special education, the general educators are facing increased [pressures] too. The war on schools is taking a real toll.
As it relates to the topic of inclusion, there is every reason to believe and expect that most children with diagnosed learning disabilities and/or ADHD will grow up and be able to get a job, live a normal life, and be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness if they so choose. I strongly believe in inclusion (free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment) but not full inclusion (100% of the time in general education no matter what).
I don’t claim to have the answer to the question of what to do about special education. I have my answer but I’m a realist – probably less than one percent of the population would agree but in my view, Section 504 could provide reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities/conditions; that is how it works everywhere else in the real world outside the often make believe world of education. Special education was a noble and well-intentioned experiment but maybe it’s time to just admit it didn’t work and we could serve students like everyone else – by insuring they are not discriminated against due to a condition.