Disability and Education System

Disability and the Education System

Laudan Aron and Pamela Loprest

SummaryEducation is important for all children, but even more so for children with disabilities, whosesocial and economic opportunities may be limited. In this article. Laudan Aron and PamelaLoprest assess how well the nation s education system is serving students with disabilities.

Aron and Loprest trace the evolution of the special education system in the United States fromits origins in the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. They note the dual char-acter of federal legislation, which both guarantees eligible children with disabilities the right toa "free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive setting" and establishes a federalfunding program to help meet this goal. They then review the types of services and accommo-dations these children receive from infancy through young adulthood.

The special education system has given children with disabilities much greater access to publiceducation, established an infrastructure for educating them, helped with the earlier identifica-tion of disabilities, and promoted greater inclusion of these children alongside their nondisabledpeers. Despite these advances, many problems remain, including die over- and underidentifica-tion of certain subgroups of students, delays in identifying and serving students, and bureau-cratic, regulatory, and financial barriers that complicate the program for everyone involved.

More important, the authors show that special education students still lag behind their nondis-abled peers in educational achievements, are often held to lower expectations, are less likelyto take the full academic curriculum in high school, and are more likely to drop out of school.Only limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of specific special education services oron how to improve student achievement for this important subgroup of students.

Improving the system will require better ways of understanding and measuring both ends ofthe special education continuum, namely, what services special education children need andreceive, and what academic outcomes these students achieve. Without stronger evidencelinking these two aspects of the system, Aron and Loprest argue, researchers will be unable togauge the efficacy of the services now being delivered or to formulate effective reforms to thesystem as a whole.

www.futureofehildren.org

Laudan Aron is a senior program officer in the Division of Behaviorai and Social Sciences and Education at the National Research Coun-cil in Washington, D.C. Pameia Loprest is director of the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 97


It is difficult to overstate the impor-tance of the nation's educationsystem for children with disabilitiesand their famiUes. Education isimportant for all children, of course,

but for those with disabilities or specialneeds it can mean the difference between asocially fulfilUng, intellectually stimulating,and economically productive life and a futurewith few of these qualities. Education alsohas the potential to affect children's health byinfiuencing their ability to advocate for them-selves, manage chronic health conditions, andnavigate complex medical, insurance, andsocial service systems during childhood andlater in life.

An early childhood or preschool program ora child's elementary school is often the firstregular contact a family has with a profes-sional child-serving system. While childrenwith obvious congenital, physical, or sensorydisabiUties are Ukely to have been identifiedand served within the health care systembefore starting school, many disabilities (par-ticularly learning disabilities and behavioraldisorders) and developmental delays are notidentified or may not emerge before a childbegins school. Many disabilities, moreover,are actually manifestations of physical ormental Umitations within specific social orenvironmental contexts, and of the behav-ioral or performance expectations of sociallydefined roles within those contexts. In thesecases, school represents a new and chang-ing context within the life of a child, so newapproaches and accommodations may beneeded even for children whose conditionsand Umitations have been long known.

In this article, we offer a brief history of thelegal underpinnings of the nation's specialeducation system, explaining how and whythe existing system has evolved as it has. We

highlight the dual nature of the law, whichboth defines civil rights for a class of pro-tected persons and estabUshes a fundingstream for programs and services to supportthese persons.

We then present basic information profil-ing special education students in the UnitedStates and the types of semces and accom-modations they receive. These services inprinciple are wide ranging, from providingearly intervention to coordinating care tohelping students transition from high schoolto postsecondary education or employmentand training. The critical importance ofearly identification and prevention of child-hood disabiUties is now widely established.Intervening early and effectively can redirectthe health and educational trajectory of manychildren with disabilities, especially thosewith specific learning disabilities, and can alsoprevent the onset of secondary disabiUties.In addition to offering regular educationalactivities and any special educational servicesand interventions a child with a disabiUty mayneed, schools are settings where a variety ofother child- and family-centered services canbe delivered and coordinated.' These servicescan be critical for children with disabilitiesand their families, especially for those whoare poor, have Umited EngUsli skills, or areprecariously housed. Schools also have a par-ticularly important role to play in helping stu-dents (and teens who leave school) transitionsuccessfully to postsecondary education andjob training, employment, and independentliving in adulthood. These transition points inthe lives of children are important and can beespecially challenging for young people withdisabilities and their families.-

The discussion then turns to a review of thecosts of special education (and related fund-ing issues) and the educational outcomes

98 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN

that children with disabilities are achieving.These two aspects of the system often raisethe greatest concerns; not only is the systemexpensive and growing more so over time,but a substantial gap in educational outcomesremains between children with disabilitiesand other children. A final section discussessome implications for practice and policy.

Histoiy and Legal ContextThe nation s current approach to educatingchildren with disabilities is the product ofdramatic shifts in disability law and publicpolicy over the past four decades. Beforethe 1970s no major federal laws specificallyprotected the civil or constitutional rightsof Americans with disabilities. Public poli-cies were generally directed at veterans withdisabilities returning home from two worldwars. The civil rights movement of the 1960sled to a major shift in the "disability rightsmovement" from one primarily focused onsocial and therapeutic services to one focusedon political and civil rights.'

A critical turning point came with thepassage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—especially Section 504 of the act, whichbanned recipients of federal funds fromdiscriminating against people with disabili-ties. For the first time, a federal law statedthat excluding or segregating an individualwith a disabihty constituted discrimination. Italso challenged the assumption that disad-vantages faced by people with disabilities,such as low educational attainment orunemployment, were the inevitable result oflimitations stemming from the disability itselfrather than from societal barriers or preju-dices. Because almost all pubhc schoolsreceive federal funds. Section 504 alsoapplied to them. The law entitles children toa public education comparable to thatprovided to children who do not have


disabilities, with disabihty broadly defined toinclude any person who has a physical ormental impairment that substantially limitsone or more major life activities, has a recordof such impairment, or is regarded as havingsuch an impairment.^

While Section 504 helped establish greateraccess to an education by removing inten-tional and unintentional barriers, a more pro-active law protecting the educational rights ofchildren with disabilities came two years laterwitli the passage in 1975 of the Individualswith Disabilities Fducation Act (IDEA).''IDFA established the right of children withdisabilities to attend public schools, to receiveservices designed to meet their needs free ofcharge, and, to the greatest extent possible, toreceive instruction in regular education class-rooms alongside nondisabled children. Thesecore substantive rights at the heart of IDEAare embodied in die phrase "a free, appropri-ate, public education in the least restrictiveenvironment." Part B of IDEA authorizesfederal grants to states to cover some of thecosts of special education services for pre-school and school-aged children aged threeto twenty-one.

Unhke Section 504, IDEA does not cover allchildren with disabilities. The law has a two-pronged ehgibility standard—children musthave at least one of a list of specific impair-ments, and they must need special educationand related services by reason of such impair-ments (note that this definition is primarily amedical or diagnostic one, with some func-tional criteria added). The specific impair-ments and disabilities listed in the law aremental retardation (also known as intellectualdisabilities); hearing impairments, includingdeafness; speech or language impairments;visual impairments, including blindness;serious emotional disturbance; orthopedic

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 99


impairments; autism; traumatic brain injury;other health impairments; specific learn-ing disabilities; deaf-blindness; and multipledisabilities requiring special education andrelated services. Children aged three throughnine who experience "developmental delays"in their physical, cognitive, communication,social or emotional, or adaptive developmentare also eligible for special education andrelated services.

In 1986 Part C of IDEA was established as afederal grant program focused on youngerchildren (birth through age two) with disabili-ties. Its goals are to enhance the developmentof infants and toddlers with disabilities;reduce educational costs by minimizing thefuture need for special education; maximizethe likelihood of independent living inadulthood; and enhance families' capacity tomeet their children's needs. Part C providesstates with federal grants to develop andadminister a comprehensive statewide systemof early-intervention services for any childunder age three who has a disability orsignificant delay in development.

As a relatively young program, IDEA con-tinues to evolve. Amendments to the lawin 1997 focused on improving students'access to the general education classroomand curriculum, developing more accurateand appropriate assessments of academicachievement, implementing better disciplin-ary procedures and alternative placementoptions, and bolstering transition servicesand supports for students aging out of specialeducation. The most recent amendments,enacted in 2004, were designed to promotebetter accountability for results, enhance par-ent involvement, encourage the use of provenpractices and materials, and reduce adminis-trative burdens for teachers, states, and localschool districts.

The development of the nation's special edu-cation system has come in the midst of majorand ongoing attempts to reform the generalpublic education system. Significant influ-ences include the standards-based reformmovement, which led to and was then accel-erated by the federal No Child Left Behindlaw of 2002; the school choice and publiccharter school movement; and the growingneed for "alternative" schools and programsfor students who for a variety of reasons arenot succeeding in regular public schools."

Special Education StudentsIDEA has thrown open the doors of pub-lic education to children with disabilities.Before its passage in 1975, only one in fivechildren with identified disabilities attendedpublic school, and many states explicitlyexcluded children with certain types of dis-abilities from school; these included chil-dren who were blind or deaf, and childrenlabeled "emotionally disturbed" or "mentallyretarded." More than 1 million children withdisabilities had no access to the public schoolsystem and often lived in state institutionswith limited or no educational or rehabilita-tion services. Many of the 3.5 milHon chil-dren with disabilities who did attend schoolwere warehoused in segregated facilitieswith little or no effective instruction. By the2004-05 school year, thirty years after IDEAwas first enacted, more than 6.7 million chil-dren (13.8 percent of all students nationally)were receiving special education servicesthrough the law. Another 295,000 infantsand toddlers and their families were servedunder Part C." Since peaking in the middleof the decade, the number of special educa-tion students has been gradually declining,and as of the 2009-10 school year, stood at6.5 million, or 13.1 percent, of all students(figure 1).



Figure 1. Proportion of the Nationai Student Population in Speciai Education, 1980-81 to 2009-10

14.0

13.5

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009

Source: Nationai Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.Department of Education, various years).

Learning disabilities are the most commondisability among special education studentstoday. Eor many years, almost half of specialeducation students were classified as havinga specific learning disability as their primarydisability. The share of special educationstudents with learning disabilities fell from 46percent in 2000-01 to 38 percent in 2009-10,but these students still remained the singlelargest disability group (figure 2).

Like many other childhood conditions thatare on the rise (see the article in this volumeby Halfon and others*), it is unclear howmuch of the growth in learning disabilities isa true increase in prevalence or a reflection ofour new understanding and ability to identifythe problem. When IDEA was passed,learning disabilities were neither well-knownnor understood. Today, the causes of learningdisabilities are still unclear, but an explosionof research and program and policy attentionhas focused on this class of disorders.

Definitions—both diagnostic and program-matic—have evolved over time. IDEAregulations define a specific learning disabil-ity as a disorder in one or more of the basicpsychological processes involved in under-standing or using spoken or written languagethat may manifest itself in an imperfectability to listen, think, speak, read, write,spell, or do mathematical calculations.Contributing conditions include perceptualdisabilities, brain injury, minimal braindysfunction, dyslexia, and developmentalaphasia. Specific learning disabilities can alsoaffect executive function skills, such asimpulse control, flexibility, planning, andorganizing, as well as social and emotionalskills. The regulations make clear, however,that learning problems resulting primarilyfrom visual, hearing, or motor disabilities;mental retardation; emotional disturbance; orenvironmental, cultural, or economic disad-vantage are not specific learning disabilitiesunder the law. Specific learning disabilities

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 101


Figure 2. Special Education Population by Disabiiity

2000-01N = 6.3 million students

, 3% 8%

10%

22%

2009-10N = 6.48 million students

5%

7%

22%

46%

Autism (2%)

Deveiopmental delay (3%)

Emotional disturbance (8%)

I Intellectual disabiiity (10%)

Other health impairment (5%)

I Specific learning disability (46%)

I Speech or ianguage impairment (22%)

I Other disabilities (5%)

11%

38%

I Autism (6%)

Developmental delay (6%)

I Emotionai disturbance (6%)

I intellectual disabiiity (7%)

Other heaith impairment (11%)

I Specific iearning disability (38%)

Speech or ianguage impairment (22%)

I Other disabilities (5%)

Source: Janie Scuil and Amber Winkler, "Shifting Trends in Special Education" (Washington, D.C: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2011),figure 2.

are an important group of disorders for thespecial education population, both because somany students have them and because bydefinition they affect learning.

The next most common type of disability,affecting 22 percent of all special educationstudents in 2009-10, is speech or languageimpairment. "Other health impairments," acatchall category for students whose healthconditions reduce their abilities to perform inthe educational setting, account for 11 per-cent of special education students.** Mentalretardation accounts for 7 percent of specialeducation students, and autism, developmen-tal delay, and emotional disturbance eachaccount for 6 percent. Like specific learningdisabilities, the shares of students classifiedas having mental retardation and emotional

disturbance has declined since 2000, butother disabilities have increased. The shareof students with autism rose from 2 percentto 6 percent of all special education studentsover the past decade, and tlie share of thosewith "other health impairments" more thandoubled.

Some of tliese trends in the share of specialeducation students with certain disabilities,such as autism, are mirroring changes docu-mented in national population-based surveysof children's health and, like these sources,may be refiecting both true changes inprevalence as well as improvements in aware-ness, identification, and diagnosis. Someobservers have speculated that students whowould have been classified as having a learningdisability in the past are now classified as


having autism or "other health impairment."Most of the information on special educationstudents comes from administrative data,however, and is therefore infiuenced by manyfactors in addition to students' disablingconditions. These factors include how studentsare referred, evaluated, and identified forspecial education services. Civen the very real,and often perverse, financial incentive struc-tures within the special education system, stateand local policies and practices designed toinfiuence if and how students are identifiedand served are another important factor.Large state-by-state variation in overall (anddisabiUty-specific) identification rates suggestthat many considerations other than underly-ing prevalence of disabiUty are at play.

DisabiUty profiles also vary with students'age—speech or language impairments anddevelopmental delays are common amongpreschoolers, while elementary school stu-dents are most commonly diagnosed withspeech or language impairments and specificleaming disabilities. Students aged twelveand older are most often diagnosed withleaming disabilities, and they are less Ukelythan their younger counterparts to be diag-nosed with speech and language impairmentsand more likely to have mental retardation oran emotional disturbance.'" • ' •' ''«i

The Umitations and semce needs of childrenvary greatly depending on the types ofdisabiUties involved. Combining specialeducation students into small groups definedby disabiUty types with similarities in serviceneeds eases discussion of program outcomes,poUcies, and practices. In 2001 Wade Homand Douglas Tynan proposed segmenting thespecial education student population intothree distinct subgroups: children withsignificant developmental disabilities andsensory and physical impairments; children

Disabilittj and the Education System

with milder forms of neurological conditions,such as learning disabiUties and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; and those withconduct or behavioral problems (the groupscan and do overlap with one another)." Thefirst group includes children who were theprimary target of the original IDEA legislation—a relatively small share of special educationstudents today. Each of these groups requiresa distinct set of services and disability-relatedaccommodations, such as medical services,learning-related interventions, or behavioralsupports. Alternate groupings have beenused by several long-term special educationstudies—such as the Special EducationElementary Longitudinal Study and theNational Longitudinal Transition Study—andrecommended by the President's Commissionon Excellence in Special Education. Theseorganizational schemes differ somewhat fromone another, but all are efforts to simpUfydifferences in service needs among specialeducation students.

While the disability profile of special educa-tion students is largely similar for studentsfrom different racial or ethnic groups (themost common category for all groups, forexample, is specific leaming disabilities),overall rates of identification do vary by raceand ethnicity. In 2005, for example, the shareof students aged six through twenty-oneidentified for services under IDEA rangedfrom 6.3 percent of Asian school-age childrento 14.1 percent of white children and 16.7percent of African American children. ForAmerican Indian and Hispanic school-agechildren, the shares were 15.8 and 11.8percent, respectively. Serious concerns havebeen raised for many years about the overrep-resentation of African American students inspecial education. For example, non-HispanicAfrican American students are almost threetimes as Ukely as other students to be

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 103


Figure 3. Percentage Distribution of Students Aged 6 to 21 Served under IDEA, Part B, Placed in aRegular School Environment, by Time Spent in General Classes

70

60

50

30 79-40 percent

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source; S. Aud and others, "The Condition of Education 2011," NCES 2011-033 (Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). figure 7-2.

identified as needing special educationservices for mental retardation and nearly twoand a half times more likely to be identified asneeding semces for emotional disturbance.'^

Disproportionate representation has also beendocumented along dimensions such as familyincome, native language, and gender (boys aremore hkely to be identified as needing specialeducation than girls), but much of tlie policyand research focus has centered on the over-representation of African American students.'^The 2004 amendments to the law requiredstates to estabhsh pohcies to prevent inappro-priate overidentification by race or ethnicityand to track (dis)proportionality on the basis ofrace and ethnicity over time. Many factors arethought to contribute to this problem, includ-ing poverty, institutional racism, biased stan-dardized testing, and low numbers of teachersand other school professionals from diversebackgrounds. States typically respond tocriticism regarding the overrepresentation ofAfrican American students by providing more

teacher awareness training, examining theway students are identified and placed, andimproving die way students at risk for readingproblems are monitored and served. Therehas been little systematic analysis of the causesand consequences of overrepresentation or ofthe effectiveness of attempted solutions.

A related challenge has been the identifica-tion of learning disabilities among Englishlanguage learner students. Many of thesestudents have been incorrectly identified ashaving learning disabihties, while others withtrue learning disabilities have gone unidenti-fied. The needs of students who are bothlearning English and learning disabledrepresent an important and evolving area ofattention within the educational research andpractice communities.

A critical and closely monitored aspect ofspecial education has to do with wherestudents are served. In addition to providingthem with "a free and appropriate

104 THE FUTURE OF CHiLDREN

education," IDEA requires schools to servestudents in "the least restrictive environ-ment," meaning that to the greatest extentpossible, special education students shouldbe kept in "regular" classrooms alongsidetheir nondisabled peers. While almost all(about 95 percent) special education studentsare enrolled in regular schools, many spend aportion of their school day outside thisclassroom." Gradually, an increasing numberof these children have been spending most oftheir school day in general education classes.In 2008-09, for example, 58 percent of themspent 80 percent or more of their day in aregular classroom, up from 46 percent in1995-96 (figure 3).

The educational environments of studentsalso vary by their age and type of disability.Regular classrooms are the most commonsetting for special education students in allage groups, but older students are morelikely than their younger counterparts tospend portions of their school day away fromtheir regular classrooms, often going to sepa-rate classrooms for specialized instruction.Similarly, students with speech or languageimpairments, developmental delays, visualimpairments, and specific learning disabilitiesare much more likely to spend large sharesof their day in a regular classroom comparedwith students with mental retardation, mul-tiple disabilities, or deaf-blindness.'^

Education Services for Childrenwith DisabilitiesOnce a child is deemed eligible for specialeducation services, a team that includes thechild's parents and representatives of thepublic education system is charged withdeveloping an individualized educationprogram that outlines academic goals andincorporates all the services and supportsnecessary to meet the child's unique needs.


Services and supports can include transporta-tion; speech-language pathology and audiol-ogy services; psychological services; physicaland occupational therapy; therapeutic recre-ation; counseling services including rehabili-tation counseling, orientation, and mobilityservices; medical semces for diagnostic orevaluation purposes; school health services;social work services in school; and parentcounseling and training.

Within schools and classrooms, specialeducation students can benefit from a varietyof approaches and supports, includingcurriculum modification, small-group orindividual instruction, and teachers who areespecially skilled in motivating students,adapting instructional materials, teachingreading skills and language arts, and manag-ing student behaviors. Specific accommoda-tions might include tutors or aides, moretime for students to take tests, alternativetests or assessments, modified gradingstandards, slower-paced instruction, shorteror different assignments, more frequentfeedback, a reader or interpreter, a peertutor, or special behavior managementapproaches and programs.

IDEA requires states to identify, locate,and evaluate all children from birth to agetwenty-one who are in need of early interven-tion or special education services. In practice,children enter the program in many differentways, and they are also often assessed, identi-fied, and then served quite differently. Twogroups of students who have received moresystematic attention by researchers and pro-gram planners are those who struggle withreading and those with behavioral problems.We describe recent innovative approachesfor intervening successfully with these stu-dents. Because the importance of children'sexperiences before they reach school age

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 105


(whether or not they have a disability) is alsoweU estabhshed, we also discuss the types ofservices preschool-age children can receivethrough the Part C special education systembefore they start their formal schooUng.

Response to Intei"ventionThe reauthorization of IDEA in 2004changed the law about how children withspecific learning disabilities could be iden-tified by allowing an approach known asresponse to intervention (RTI). Rather thanidentify learning disabilities by document-ing a discrepancy between a student's abil-ity (usually measured by IQ) and his or heracademic achievement (usually measured bygrades and standardized test results), RTIcalls for a tiered process of instruction inwhich schools identify struggling studentsearly and then deliver a variety of appropriateinstructional interventions.'^ In theory, RTIshould benefit all students (including thosewho previously did not qualify for specialeducation services) because it requires thatall essential components of reading instruc-tion be delivered as part of the core cur-riculum.'' Schools using RTI must deliverscientific, research-based reading instructionto all students in the general education class-room; screen all children early to determineif they are at risk for learning disabilities;monitor the progress of all at-risk children todetermine if they are benefiting from instruc-tion; and use programs or curricula correctlyand as intended.

Like many aspects of the special educationsystem, RTI is still being developed andrefined, and its effectiveness in reducing thenumber of students with specific learningdisabilities remains unproven. At best, it maybe an effective driver of schoolwide instruc-tional improvement, one that also preventsthe misidentification of learning disabilities

(poor instruction sometimes leads to childrenbeing identified as having a disability) andthat allows schools to intervene early withstudents with true learning disabilities. Butsome observers are concerned that schooldistricts can use RTI to delay and limit accessto full-blown special education services.Because RTI often takes place over a numberof years, with new teachers and approacheseach year, it has the potential to serve as abureaucratic means for delaying a full evalua-tion and identification of a learning disability.Districts' desires to contain high special edu-cation costs lend credibility to this viewpoint(more on this point later). These tensionsreflect a more general discussion withineducation circles about the need to improveteaching by differentiating instruction forall students and to limit special educationservices to a smaller number of students withmore disabling conditions."*

Positive Behavioral Interventionsand SupportsCan and should students with behavioralproblems and other disabilities be disciplined?This question has been a major focus ofspecial education law and regulations, in partbecause schools are struggling with how tomanage disciplinary problems, which appearto be increasing among students with disabili-ties, and in part because these students aremost likely to be negatively affected byzero-tolerance discipline policies and otherhigh-stakes testing and accountability mea-sures. IDEA requires that disabilities be takeninto account when students are disciplined.Schools must also conduct functional behav-ioral assessments and use positive behavioralsupports with students who are at risk forexpulsion, alternative school placement, orsuspension of more than ten days. Positivebehavioral support is a general term thatrefers to the application of behavioral analysis

106 THE FUTURE OF CHiLDREN


to achieve functional behavior changes;positive behavioral interventions and supportsare often based on functional behavioralassessments and involve long-term strategiesdesigned to reduce inappropriate behavior,teach more appropriate behavior, and providesupports necessaiy for successful outcomes.'^

Originally an alternative to traditional behav-ioral approaches for students with severedisabilities who engaged in extreme forms ofself-injury and aggression, positive behavioralinterventions and supports are now used bothschoolwide and for individual students withand without disabilities.^" Schoolwide inter-ventions can include evaluating the schoolenvironment—classrooms, hallways, cafete-ria—to determine where and when problemsare likely to occur; creating strategies toprevent the identified problems; teachingall students rules and routines to encouragedesirable behavior; responding to inappro-priate student behavior with correction andreteaching procedures; establishing behaviorsupport teams to monitor effectiveness ofprevention strategies; and using data collec-tion (direct behavioral observation, officediscipline referrals, interviews with staff andfamily members) and analysis to identifystudents who are at risk for school failure.More intensive, individualized interventionsinclude drawing on fimctional behavioralassessments to monitor and modify behav-ior plans as necessary (the responsibility ofbehavior support teams); ensuring that alladults in the school understand what skillsthese students are learning so that all settingsin the school environment can be arrangedin ways that reduce problem behavior andencourage appropriate behavior; and deliver-ing effective instructional strategies, aggres-sion replacement training, counseling, andclassroom supports. Students with chronicor intense behavioral problems might also

receive "wraparound" services that coordi-nate services and input from home, commu-nity, and school.

Early Intervention and Transitionto SehoolingEarly intervention is based on the now widelyaccepted idea that identifydng children'sneeds and providing services early in theirlives can avoid or alleviate future serviceneeds by lessening the effects of a disablingcondition and in some cases actually reducingthe occurrence of additional disabling condi-tions. Early intervention services includescreening, assessment, referral, and treat-ment and tend to be less specialized, intru-sive, and costly than "higher order" services.

Early intervention services are provided tochildren with disabilities through severalpublic programs. In addition to Part C ofIDEA, states offer early intervention servicesunder Title V of the Maternal and ChildHealth program and the Early and PeriodicScreening, Diagnosis, and Treatment(EPSDT) component of Medicaid. Part B ofIDEA also provides semces to children agedthree to five. The group of children receivingearly intervention services through Part Cincludes infants and toddlers with diagnosedmedical conditions (many of whom had lowbirth weight) that put them at risk fordevelopmental delay and toddlers who areshowing developmental delay, meaning a gapbetween their actual development andage-appropriate expectations.-' In 2005 about2.4 percent of the population under age threeand their families were receiving servicesthrough Part C. It is unclear what fraction ofthe eligible population this represents, sinceeach state has different criteria and to date nostudy has estimated the numbers of eligiblechildren.

VCL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 107


Other programs that provide educationalservices to low-income preschool childrenwith disabilities include Head Start (three-and four-year-olds) and Early Head Start(under age three). About 12 percent of HeadStart students have disabiUties, half of whichare identified during the program year andhalf before joining the program. Almost allof these children receive special educationand related services.̂ - A similar percentage ofchildren in Early Head Start has disabiUties.

Despite the widespread recognition of thevalue of early intervention, the programsface several challenges to their effectiveness:reaching eUgible children is difficult (oftenthe neediest children are hardest to reach),resources are Umited, needed services arenot always available for eligible children,and transitioning from programs servingyoung children to those serving preschooland school children can be complicated anduneven. Evidence shows that high-qualityearly intervention at young ages can providelong-term cost savings.̂ ^ However, becausethese savings accme over time and acrosspublic programs (such as education, health,or criminal justice), the full impact of long-term savings may not be taken into account inindividual program decisions.

Eligibility, services, program structures, andaccess to early intervention programs varygreatly from state to state. Under Part C,for example, states must serve all eligiblechildren and families but have a great dealof latitude in setting eligibility criteria. Statechoices in developing their eligibility criteriaare infiuenced by concerns over numbersof eUgible children and costs. For example,states are allowed to serve children who areat risk of a developmental delay, but only fourstates have opted to do so, in part because offunding concerns.^

Identification and access to screening servicesconstitute another challenge. Each state isresponsible for implementing a Child Findprogram that locates, identifies, and refersall children in need of early intervention orspecial education services. Each Child Findprogram is required to include proceduresfor screening child health and development.Screening is also mandated under Medicaid'sEPSDT Program and is required of pédiatriehealth care providers who deliver routinehealth supervision services such as preven-tive care and well-child visits. For low-incomechildren with disabiUties, screening throughEPSDT is a potentially powerful tool becauseit mandates coverage for certain medicallynecessary health care services identifiedthrough the screening. But many families donot have access to these screening services. Arecent report found diat, in nine states, fouroften Medicaid-enroUed children eUgible forEPSDT did not receive any of the requiredscreenings and that the screenings wereincomplete for nearly 60 percent of those whodid receive them. This record comes despiterequirements that all eligible Medicaid recipi-ents be notified within sixty days of enroll-ment about available EPSDT services andamid multiple other forms of state outreachactivities and provider incentives. Accordingto the states, barriers to completing screen-ings include cultural or family beliefs thatscreenings are not necessaiy, the unwilling-ness or inability of famiUes to take time offwork to take their child to the screening, Um-ited access to providers, and incorrect contactinformation for beneficiaries.^

Finally, transitions for young children fromearly childhood programs to preschool toschool are not always smooth.̂ ^ When a childreceiving Part C services reaches age two anda half, IDEA requires a meeting betweenthe Part C service agency, parents, and the


Despite the widespreadrecognition of the valueof early intervention, theprograms face severalchallenges to theireffectiveness.

local education agency to determine continu-ing ehgibihty for special education servicesand to ensure a smooth effective transitionto preschool. Disconnects can and do occur,however, because of the number of agenciesinvolved in determining eligibility for pre-school special services, the number of agen-cies in the community (private, nonprofit,for profit, and Early Head Start programs)involved in providing these services, and thevariety of ways and settings in which youngchildren receive early intervention services.̂ ^Similar challenges occur when children withdisabilities transition from the preschool set-ting into the school system or move from onestate or school district into another.

FundingSpecial education programs are funded by acombination of federal, state, and localgovernment programs. The most recentcomprehensive estimates of total publicexpenditures on special education come froma special study for the 1999-2000 schoolyear.-̂ Special study is required to gather thisinformation because states are not obligatedto give detailed state and local breakdowns ofspecial education spending to the federalgovernment. In the 1999-2000 school year,the United States spent an estimated $50billion on special education services and an


additional $27.3 billion in general educationfunds for those special education studentswho spent part of their time in generaleducation classroom settings, for a total $77.3billion.

This total represents about 21 percent oftotal U.S. spending on elementary andsecondary education that year—a substantialincrease from 1977-78, when total spendingon students with disabilities was about 17percent of total education spending. Most ofthis increase is attributable to an increase inthe number of children in special educationrather than to an increase in per-pupil costs.

Federal funding has always been a relativelysmall share of total expenditures on specialeducation. In 2010 federal funding on specialeducation through IDEA was $12.5 billion,most of it in the form of grants to help statespay the additional costs of providing earlyintervention, special education, and relatedservices to children from birth through agetwenty-one. The federal government alsomakes discretionary grants to states forpersonnel development and training, tech-nology and technical assistance, and parentinformation centers.^^ Federal funding levelsfor special education have been relatively fiatsince 2004, with the exception of a significantinfusion of special funds under the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.™

When IDEA was enacted, its intention was tohelp states provide special education by fund-ing a portion of the additional, or "excess,"cost of special education over general educa-tion. The original legislation set the maximumfederal contribution at 40 percent of theestimated excess cost of educating childrenwith disabilities, but federal funding hasnever come close to this "full funding" cap.In 2010, federal grants to the states under

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRiNG 2012 109


IDEA, Part B, covered about 17 percent ofthe excess cost for special education students.In the 1999-2000 school year, schools spent90 percent more on the average school-agespecial education student (including generaland special education funding) than on theaverage general education studeiit.̂ ^

As total special education spending hasincreased and federal spending has remainedflat, state funding for special education hasdeclined, leaving local school districts tocover the difference. In the 1987-88 schoolyear, states funded 56 percent of specialeducation expenditures, local school districts36 percent, and the federal government 8percent. In 1999-2000, the distribution was45 percent from states, 46 percent from localschool districts, and 9 percent from the fed-eral government.̂ ^

Financing structures can provide incentivesthat influence the way children are identifiedfor special education services, the servicesthey receive, and the settings in which theyreceive them. For example, financing struc-tures that provide additional state fundingper special education student can encourageidentification at the local level on the margin.Studies show that in states that switched fromdistributing their special education fundingbased on the number of children enrolledin special education, resources used, or pastactual spending to a distribution based largelyon the total number of children in the school,the number of students identified as having adisability and being eligible for special educa-tion fell.*' On the federal level as well, theformula for distributing state grant funds hasbeen tweaked in an effort to limit overidenti-fication of special needs children; a portion ofthe grant funds is now based on each state'sshare of school-age children and childrenin poverty.

At the same time, financing incentives alsoexist to underidentify students eligible forspecial education. The "excess" cost of educa-tion for a child in special education coupledwith legal protections that mandate services(that might be provided for the rest of astudent's education) and an increasing shareof funding coming from local school districtsprovides incentives for school districts to limitidentification of children for special educationservices. Which incentive effect predominatesis unclear and likely differs by school districtor state given different sets of incentives.

Variation in Spending acrossDisability TypeThe range of educational needs among stu-dents served by the special education programleads to significant differences in expenditures.Children with specific learning disabilitiesand speech or language impairment made upthe majority of children in special educationand had the lowest per-pupil expenditures,$10,558 and $10,958, respectively, in 1999-2000.̂ '' The highest expenditures were on chil-dren with multiple disabilities ($20,095) andon those who were placed in private settingsafter the public school has been found unableto provide an appropriate education ($25,580).These "high-cost" children are tlie focus ofsome efforts to reduce special educationspending. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEAallowed states to put up to 10 percent of tlieirfederal grants into state risk pools to aid localdistricts with high-need, high-cost students.The growth in total special education expendi-tures is not caused by growth in the number ofhigh-cost children, however, but primarily bytlie increase in numbers of children across allcategories of disability.

Variation in Spending across StatesStudies of special education spending acrossseveral states have uncovered dramatic


differences in spending. Nationally, as noted,average spending on special education stu-dents is 90 percent higher than spending ongeneral education students. But it is 57 per-cent higher in Alabama, for example, and 155percent higher in Maryland.'''̂ These ratiosalso reflect differences in general educationspending: states that spend more on generaleducation also tend to spend more on specialeducation.

Special Education and OutcomesIDEA and Section 504 are widely creditedwith improving access to education for youngpeople with disabilities and establishing aninfrastructure for educating them, as shownin figure 1. The next important question isthe extent to which special education hasbeen successful in meeting the educationalneeds of students with disabilities andimproving their educational achievement.

To answer this question, one must first askwhether special education programs aresei-ving the right students, and whether thesestudents are being identified in a timelymanner and given the most appropriate andeffective services. As suggested by theoverrepresentation of African Americans,some chfldren may be inappropriately placedin special education, while others may gounidentified or not receive the services theyrequire. Clearly, many needy students whoeventually receive special education did notreceive the early intervention services towhich they were entitled. Í; , .

Accurate measures of outcomes for specialeducation students are also needed, includingappropriate measures of academic achieve-ment, attendance, grade promotion, andengagement in school activities. Assessingthese outcomes is challenging because of theheterogeneity of the students' capacities and


school experiences and a paucity of data onin-school outcomes for these students. Thelack of good data even on the interventionsand inputs—the types and amounts of ser-vices special education children receive—fur-ther compromises the ability to measure theeffectiveness of intei-ventions. In addition,there is no agreement on whether the rightmeasure of academic achievement shouldbe appropriate standardized testing or somealternative assessment. Even the benchmarksfor outcomes are not clearly agreed uponand may vary across students with disabili-ties, IDEA'S requirement that each studenthave an individualized education programand goals reflects this difficulty in measuringprogress.

Perhaps an even greater challenge to assess-ing student outcomes lies in separating theeffects attributable to specific educationalpractices from other intervening and coexist-ing factors such as socioeconomic circum-stances and need for supportive services.For this and other reasons, relatively littleresearch has been conducted on the effec-tiveness of specific special education prac-tices or programs. Of course, these difficultiesmirror similar problems in measuring andimproving outcomes for general education. Inaddition, the impact of special education formost students with disabilities is intertwinedwith their general education experiences andopportunities, including whether they haveaccess to the full range of general educationoptions. Finally, studies have found that thelimited expectations of teachers and parentsfor many students with disabilities can lessenthe effectiveness of an educational program.̂ **

That said, we report on a set of measures thatare available on educational and postsecond-aiy outcomes for students in special educa-tion. These measures clearly suggest that

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRiNG 2012 111


there is room for improvement. We look spe-cifically at assessments of educational prog-ress, school completion rates, postsecondaryoutcomes, and the transition to adulthood.

Edueational AssessmentsOne measure of the academic progress ofstudents in special education is performanceon standardized achievement tests. Since pas-sage of No Child Left Behind, students withdisabilities must be included in state testingand assessed against the same standard ofproficiency as other students to determinewhether schools are making the required"adequate yearly progress" toward goals foracademic proficiency. '̂ The intention is tohold schools accountable for the performanceand progress of all students, including thosewith disabilities. Results indicate continuingproblems. For example, in 2003-04, amongschools nationwide with subgroups of stu-dents with disabilities large enough to becounted separately, students in 36 percent ofthem did not make the required progress.̂ **

Debate continues on the appropriateness ofusing the same tests and standards forassessing students with and without disabili-ties and on the use of accommodations in testtaking. Some argue that many students withdisabilities have inherent learning difficultiesand start with lower test scores and so shouldbe held to different standards while stillmaintaining progress toward goals.̂ ** In thelate 1990s, the U.S. Department ofEducation began to allow states to maketesting accommodations for students withdisabilities who need them, and in the early2000s states were allowed to use alternativeassessments and modified standards for asmall percentage of students with disabilities,particularly those with cognitive disabilities.'*"However, states report continuing challengesin developing and validating alternate

assessments (such as portfolios of work),including costs related to development. Thisarea would be a useful place for federalassistance and coordination.

Since passage of No ChildLeft Behind, students withdisabilities must he includedin state testing and assessedagainst the same standard ofproficiency as other studentsto determine whether schoolsare making the required"adequate yearly progress"toward goals for academicproficiency.

Because of differences in the way states iden-tify the students who take assessment tests,the tests and standards that are used, and thetesting accommodations they may provide,clear comparisons and interpretations of theresults of state assessments are difficult tomake. Comparing results over time, even forthe same state, is complicated by changes inthe composition of special education studentsand in policies, such as test accommodations,that can directly infiuence who participates instandard assessments as well as the results.

Given these caveats, results from theNational Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) standardized test, which is con-ducted in the same way in all states andwhich changes only slowly over time, pro-vide useful information on the achievementand progress of students with disabilities.


These results suggest some progress but alsopoint to substantial gaps between studentswith disabiUties and their nondisabledpeers. Academic achievement trends from2003 through 2007 measured by the NAEPshowed significant increases in average read-ing and math scores for children in fourthgrade who received IDEA services. But ineach of these years, students in special educa-tion had significantly lower scores than otherstudents."*' In the 2009 reading assessmentfor twelfth graders, 64 percent of studentswith disabiUties but 24 percent of other stu-dents tested below basic proficiency; in math76 percent of students with disabiUties and34 percent of other students fell below basicproficiency.""̂ Other grade-level assessmentsshow similar gaps. Several reasons accountfor the lower scores among students withdisabilities. The factors cited by one studywere type of disabiUty, cognitive ability, race,income, parental expectations, school absen-teeism, and disciplinary problems. Crades,school mobility, and repeating a grade levelwere not significantly related to test scores."*̂

Graduation RatesAnother important educational outcome isthe rate at which students with disabilitieseither graduate from or drop out of highschool. Measurement of graduation rates canbe complicated. Results from national studiesthat track secondary school students with dis-abilities found that 70 percent of the teenag-ers with disabiUties who were out of schoolin 2003 had received a regular graduationdiploma or certificate of completion, up from54 percent in 1987*''* and not far below the 74percent graduation rate for all pubUc schoolstudents in 2002-03.''5 However, far fewerspecial education students receive regulardiplomas than do those in general education.In 2005, 46 percent of youth receiving IDEAservices graduated with a regular diploma.


compared with 75 percent for all students.''^High school completion rates also differ sub-stantially across disabiUty type. For example,students with sensoiy disabilities have muchhigher graduation rates than students withemotional disturbance.

Evidence is Umited on how best to improvegraduation rates for students with disabilities.One recent study in Chicago found that ninthgrade course performance is a strong predic-tor of graduation rates for these students.This study also found that high absencerates are an important factor explaining whystudents with disabilities have poorer courseperformance dian students without identifieddisabilities."*^

Postsecondary Outcomes and theTransition to AdulthoodMany studies have found that students withdisabilities have poorer outcomes in the yearsafter high school than their peers withoutdisabiUties, including lower rates of postsec-ondaiy schooUng and employment, greaterinvolvement with the criminal justice system,and lower likelihood of living indepen-dently."** Other dimensions to consider forthese students (but less often measured) arequaUty of Ufe, satisfaction, and social andcivic engagement. Relatively Uttle is knownabout the relationship of the school programto these life outcomes for those withdisabiUties.

Recognizing the difficulties some youth faceas they transition to adulthood from school-ing, IDEA requires that transition planningbe provided to all special education studentsstarting no later than age sixteen. One obvi-ous problem is that students who drop out ofschool at age sixteen may never receive theseservices. Transition semces may includecoordination of services (such as vocational

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 113


training, case management, and benefitcounseling) in and outside of schools, assess-ments of students' interests and aptitudes,help with gathering information on andchoosing among relevant opportunities, andplanning for necessary supports includingassistive technology. The 2004 amendmentsto IDEA require that transition planningbe based on students' "strengths," not justtheir preferences and interests, and that theprocess be "results-oriented." In 2001 almost90 percent of special education high schoolstudents were receiving transition planning,with two-thirds of parents satisfied with theseservices.̂ '̂ Nonetheless, the extent to whichcurrent planning semces are improving out-comes for students with disabilities has notbeen clearly demonstrated, although researchhas shown the potential for positive impact.'"

Given the importance of higher educationfor future economic well-being, one area ofconcern for students with disabilities is theirrelatively low participation in postsecond-ary schooling. One study found that in 2005,46 percent of students with disabilities wereenrolled in postsecondary education withinfour years of leaving high school, mostly incommunity colleges or vocational, technical,or business schools.'' This rate represents agood deal of progress since 1990 when only27 percent of these youth were enrolledin postsecondary education. But it is stillsubstantially below the enrollment rate of63 percent in the general population. Otherstudies find that adults with disabihties havesignificantly lower levels of postsecondaryschool completion than those without dis-abilities, even among the subgroup who had adisability during their school years.'^

Another concern is whether youth are beingappropriately prepared for employment,given the low rate of employment among

adults with disabilities. Employment ratesamong youth with disabilities just out of highschool were similar to those of other youthwithout disabilities in 2005—roughly 60 per-cent. However, employment rates at this agerefiect schooling choices as well as employ-ment choices—unemployed youth attendingschool are of less concern than those whoare neither working nor in school. In 2003,30 percent of students with disabilities werenot participating in schooling, employment,or job training in the years immediatelyafter high school. This lack of engagementvaried considerably by disability status. Forexample, more than half of students withmental retardation had not engaged in any ofthese activities compared with 17 percent ofstudents with learning disabilities.'^

Opportunities for vocational or career train-ing opportunities and vocational assessmentsof interest and aptitude are part of students'transition planning that can improve employ-ment outcomes. Coordinating job training,both while students are still in school andafter they leave, with available workforceoptions from other public programs suchas those funded through the WorkforceInvestment Act and Vocational Rehabilitationis also important. Even as the focus on transi-tion planning in IDEA has been strength-ened, many challenges remain in preparingand supporting special education studentsfor the transition to adulthood. Enhancingthe ability of secondary school students toadvocate for their needs in various settings,improving access to supports and servicesafter high school, and coordinating servicesacross postsecondary education, health, men-tal health, and human services are all areas ofintervention that need to be improved. '̂'

Additional transition issues concern childrenwith disabihties in the juvenile justice system.


alternative education systems, and the fostercare system. Special education children aredisproportionately represented in all threesystems, and their transition to adulthood isparticularly complicated and difficult."Challenges to receiving appropriate educa-tional services in these settings are com-pounded by the particular difficulties thatlead children to be in these systems and thespecific challenges these systems face. Theneed for coordination between the publiceducation system and these other systemsgoes well beyond transition planning toextend throughout the educationalexperience.

Implications for Practiceand PolicyThe nation's special education system, likethe legal and regulatory framework thatunderpins it, has evolved considerably sinceIDEA was first passed in 1975. Along withthe efforts of parents and educators andgreater societal awareness about disabilityissues, IDEA has clearly led to better accessto public education for students with dis-abilities, an established infrastructure foreducating children with disabilities, earlieridentification of disabilities in children, andgreater inclusion of these children in class-rooms with their nondisabled peers. Despitethese advances, special education studentsstill lag behind their nondisabled peers ineducational achievements, are often held tolower expectations, are less likely to take thefull academic curriculum in high school, andare more likely to drop out of school. Noris there much evidence regarding the basiceffectiveness of many services that specialeducation students receive (at consider-able expense and bureaucratic complexity)or whether these services improve studentachievement.


Over the years many studies have docu-mented fundamental problems with IDEA.In 2002 a President's Commission onExcellence in Special Education determinedthe system to be "in need of fundamentalre-thinldng, a shift in priorities, and a newcommitment to individual needs.""* Amongthe problems they identified were financialincentives to define an increasing share ofschool-age children as having a disability,adversarial procedures between parentsand schools that contributed to unnecessarylitigation, and a major redirection of financialresources from regular education to specialeducation. Other studies have demonstratedstates' noncompliance with tlie many admin-istrative and procedural requirements of theprogram, as well as the federal government'slack of funding and ineffectiveness in enforc-ing the law.̂ ''

Despite widespread agreement that thespecial education system is not working asit should or could, opinions differ over howit should be fixed. Policy makers, advocatesfor children with disabilities, and researchersincreasingly have called for financing reformsand for more accountability measures similarto those introduced in the No Child LeftBehind Act.̂ " Many of the 1997 and 2004amendments to the law were designed toincrease accountability and flexibility regard-ing financing; these amendments addressedbut did not fully resolve perverse stateincentives to increase identification of specialeducation students. Families of childrenwith disabilities, disability rights groups, andother advocates and supporters of IDEAhave sharply opposed calls for fundamentalchanges to the special education system.̂ ^They believe the program is well conceivedand properly structured but has been poorlyfunded, implemented, and enforced.

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 115


These tensions around reform reflect the lawitself. IDEA constitutes a blend of civil rightslaw and state grant programs. The dualnature and purpose of the law has contrib-uted to the creation of different stakeholders,with different goals, at the grassroots level.The major stakeholders in civil rights lawstend to be the individuals who are protectedby the law—in this case, children and youthwith disabilities and their families andsupporters. The major stakeholders in grantprograms are the recipients of the grants, inthis case state and local educational agencies,school boards, their staffs, and other profes-sionals who are supported financially by thegrants. In addition, the natural course ofreform for government programs withlimited resources is to debate priorities andmake trade-offs among them. But the civilrights requirements of IDEA limit the abilityto make trade-offs because states arerequired to provide all services necessary fora "free and appropriate education." Part ofthe ongoing challenge for program financingis how to divide these costs across the threelevels of government, given the alreadyincreasing share borne by local districts andtight budgets at all levels.

Another chaflenge for the special educationsystem is the adversarial nature of theprogram. The many legal conflicts that arisebetween parents and schools can be counter-productive for children and their educationalsuccess and costly for school systems. Tosome extent, these conflicts arise becauseparents play an integral role—one that isrequired by law—in the team that developstheir child's individualized service plan. Theincentives for parents to obtain the most helpfor their child may differ from those forschool systems that are trying to balanceeducational needs and budgets. In somecases, parents feel that school systems are

trying to avoid mandated responsibilities andneed to be held accountable legally. In anycase, the role of parents in education gener-ally as well as in special education is essential.Children without parents who can advocatefor them are often the least well served, ingeneral and special education, and these areoften chfldren from families who are alreadysocially and economically disadvantaged.Forming a less adversarial system that canserve the broader community of childrenneeding special services is an importantchallenge.

Reforming special education cannot bedone in isolation; it requires integration withreforms being made in general education.The large amount of time that many specialeducation students spend in general educa-tion settings is one argument for this integra-tion. Another is the absence of a bright linebetween many of the needs of special educa-tion students and those of other students.Efforts such as response to intervention andpositive behavioral interventions and sup-ports demonstrate this fact by creating schoolenvironments that are more conducive topositive behaviors and to learning for every-one. These efforts, when implemented asdesigned, break down a legal and program-matic firewall that has existed between thegeneral and special education systems. Theymay serve as models for other aspects of thespecial education system and point the wayfor better serving not only children with dis-abilities but afl students.

Despite calls for increased funding and theneed for reform, little evidence exists to sug-gest that additional federal funding or betterenforcement will improve student outcomesor solve many of the problems experiencedby schools and families alike. More evidenceon the impacts of special education services


on achievement and student outcomes isnecessary to gauge the efficacy of the moneybeing spent. Pinpointing the causes of thegap between special education and otherstudents' outcomes and determining how toreduce this gap effectively requires ongoingresearch. That in turn requires better dataon outcomes as well as services providedacross special education students of all ages.In addition, greater efforts are needed todevelop and standardize appropriate assess-ments of academic achievement for studentswith disabilities. Finally, given the vast differ-ences in service needs and outcomes acrossstudents of different disability types, atten-tion needs to focus on understanding howall these issues affect different subgroups ofspecial education students.


The direction special education might takein the next few decades is uncertain. Clearly,providing children with disabilities equalaccess to public education and protectingthis important civil right should not beundone. But aspects of the current programappear to be both unsustainable andunwise—unsustainable because of the costand unwise given evidence of the continuinggap between outcomes for students inspecial education and their nondisabledpeers. Together those responsible for thegeneral and special education systems mustcraft solutions that make education specialfor all students while not leaving childrenwith disabilities behind.

VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2012 117


Endnotes

1. For a review of the impact of childliood disabihties on famihes, see Susan L. Neely-Bames and David

A. Dia, "Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of Literature and Recommendations for

Interventions,"yoiimrt/ of Early and Intemive Behavioral Intervention 5, no. 3 (200S): 9.3-107.

2. D. Wayne Osgood, E. Michael Foster, and Mark E. Courtney, "Vulnerable Populations and the Transition

to Adulthood," Future of Children 10, no. 1 (2010): 209-29.

3. For more about the history of disability rights, see Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, eds.. The New

Disability History: American Perspectives (New York University Press, 2001).

4. The Section 504 regulations issued in 1977 mandating specific antidiscrimination protections such as

removing architectural and communications barriers and providing accommodations formed the basis of

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was enacted thirteen years later in July 1990. The ADA

guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities similar to those provided on the basis of race,

color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. Title II of the ADA extends these guarantees to all activities of

state and local governments, including public education, regardless of the size of the government entity or

whether it receives federal funding (Section 504 is limited to recipients of federal funding).

5. Its original name was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142). The law was

amended significantly in 1997 and 2004.

6. For a thoughtful review and history of standards-based reforms, see Laura S. Hamilton, Brian M. Stecher,

and Kun Yuan, "Standards-Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions"

(Washington: Center on Education Policy, 2009). See also National Council on Disability, "The No Child

Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabihties Education Act: A Progress Report" (Washington:

2008); and Laudan Y. Aron, "An Overview of Alternative Education," Report to the U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration (Washington: Urban Institute, 2006).

7. Jose Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Otitcomes for Children and Youth with

Disabilities," NCEE 2010-4006 (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

8. Neal Halfon and others, "The Changing Landscape of Disability in Childliood," Future of Children 22,

no. 1 (2012).

9. IDEA regulations define other health impairment as "having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, includ-

ing a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the

educational environment, that (a) is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention

deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophiha,

lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome, and (b)

adversely affects a child's educational performance," cited from Janie Scull and Amber Winkler, "Shifting

Trends in Special Education" (Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2011), appendix B.

10. Jose Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with

Disabilities" (see note 7).

11. Wade Hom and Douglas Tynan, "Time to Make Special Education 'Special' Again," in Rethinking Special

Education for a New Century, edited by Chester E. Finn and others (Washington: Thomas B. Fordliam

Institute and Progressive Pohcy Institute, 2001), p. 23.



12. U.S. Department of Education, 29th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (2010), table 1-11, p. 67.

13. Russell Skiba and others, "Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current

Challenges," Exceptional Children 74, no. 3 (2008); 264-88.

14. Among the remaining 5 percent, 3 percent were enrolled in separate schools (public or private) for

students with disabilities, 1 percent chose to attend regular private schools, and the others (less than 1

percent) were in a variety of settings such as a separate (public or private) residential facility, hospital, or

correctional facility, or were homebound.

15. U.S. Department of Education, 29th Annual Report to Congress (see note 12).

16. Amy-Jane Criffiths and others. Response to Intervention: Research for Practice (Alexandria, Va.; National

Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc., 2007).

17. Robert J. VVedl, Response to Intervention: An Alternative to Traditional Eligibility Criteria for Students

witli Disabilities (Saint Paul; Education Evolving, 2005).

18. Scull and Winkler, "Shifting Trends in Special Education" (see note 9).

19. Edward G. Carr and others, "Positive Behavior Support; Evolution of an Applied Science,"/owmaZ of

Positive Behavior Interventions 4 (2002); 4-16.

20. Ceorge Sugai and others, "Applying Positive Behavior Support and Eunctional Behavioral Assessment in

Schools," Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2 (2000); 131-43.

21. Anita Scarborough and others, "A National Look at Children and Eamilies Entering Early Intervention,"

Exceptional Children 70, no. 4 (2004); 469-83.

22. Elizabeth Hoffman, "Head Start Participants, Programs, Families, and Staff in 2009" (Washington: Center

for Law and Social Policy, 2010).

23. Martha Diefendorf and Susan Goode, "Minibibliography; The Long-Term Economic Benefits of High-

Quality Early Childhood Intervention Programs" (Washington; NECTAC Clearinghouse on Early

Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education, 2005).

24. Jo Shackelford, "State and Jurisdictíonal Eligibility Definitions for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

under IDEA," NECTAC Notes 21 (Washington; National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center,

2006).

25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, "Most Medicaid Children in

Nine States Ai-e Not Receiving All Preventive Screening Services," OEI-05-08-00520 (2010).

26. Kathleen Hebbeler and others, "Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and

Their Families; Participants, Services, and Outcomes; Final Report of the National Early Intervention

Longitudinal Study" (Menlo Park, Calif; SRI International, 2007).

27. Delia Malone and Peggy Gallagher, "Transition to Preschool Special Education; A Review of tlie

Literature," Early Education and Development 20, no. 4 (2009); 584-602.

28. J. G. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates from 1969-2000,"/oumai of Special

Education Leadership 18, no. 1 (2005); 5-13.

„ , . , ' ' 1 VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRiNG 2 0 1 2 1 1 9


29. U.S. Department of Education, "Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary" (2010) (www2.ed.gov/about/overview/

budget/budgetll/summary/index.html).

30. The American Recoveiy and Reinvestment Act provided an additional $11.3 billion in grants to states

under IDEA Part B in 2009.

31. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates" (see note 28).

32. Mary T. Moore and others, "Patterns in Special Education Service Delivery and Cost" (Washington:

Decision Resources Corporatíon, 1988).

33. K. Mahitivanichcha and Thomas Parrish, "The Implications of Fiscal Incentives on Identification Rates and

Placement in Special Education: Formulas for Influencing Best Fractices," Journal of Education Finance

31 (2005): 1-22; EUzabeth Dhuey and Stephen Lipscomb, "Funding Special Education by Capitation:

Evidence from State Finance Reforms," Education Finance and Policy 6, no. 2 (2011): 168-201; Sally

Kwak, "The Impact of Intergovernmental Incentives on Student Disability Rates," Public Finance

Revieiv 30, no. 1 (2010): 41-73.

34. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates" (see note 28).

35. Ibid.

36. For a review of the literature, see National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition, "National

Standards and Quality Improvements: Transition Toolkit for Systems Improvement" (Washington: 2005).

37. States ai-e allowed to exclude some students with disabihties who cannot participate in testing.

38. Naomi Chudowsky and Victor Chudowsky, "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for Students

with Disabilities?" (Washington: Center for Education Policy, 2009).

39. Suzanne Eckes and Julie Swando, "Special Education Subgroups under NCLB: Issues to Consider,"

Teachers College Record 111, no. 11 (2009): 2479-504.

40. Chudowsky and Chudowsy, "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for Students with

Disabihties?" (see note 38).

41. Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with

DisabiUties" (see note 7).

42. National Center for Education Statistics, "The Nation's Report Card: Crade 12 Reading and Mathematics

2009 National and Pilot State Results" (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

43. Mary Wagner and others, "The Academic Achievement and Functional Performance of Youth with

Disabilities" (Menio Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2006).

44. These data are from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth Transitions 2 for students in high school in

the fall of the 2000-01 school year who had left school; see Mary Wagner and others, "Changes over Time

in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2005).

45. Methods and data for calculating graduation rates vary and are not strictly comparable to the rate reported

for youth with disabilities. The rate used here is the averaged freshman graduation rate for school year



2002-03, which reports the percentage of ninth graders that graduate four years later See M. Seastrom

and others, "The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for Public High Schools from the Common Core of

Data: School Years 2002-03 and 2003-04" (Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).

46. Blackorby and others, "Patterns in tlie Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with

Disabilities" (see note 7). ; ;

47. Julie Cwynne and others, "What Matters for Staying on Track and Graduating in Chicago Public Schools:

A Focus on Students with Disabilities" (Consortium for Chicago School Research at the University of

Chicago, 2009).

48. For examples, see Thomas Wells, Gary Sandefur, and Dennis Hogan, "What Happens after the High

School Years among Young Persons with Disabilities?" Social Forces 82, no. 2 (2003): 803-32; Pamela

Loprest and David Wittenburg, "Post Transition Experiences of Former Child SSI Recipients," Social

Service Review 81, no. 4 (2007): 583-608; PhyUis Levine and Mary Wagner, "Transition for Young Adults

Who Received Special Education Services as Adolescents: A Time of Challenge and Change," in On Your

Own without a Net, edited by D. Wayne Osgood and others (University of Chicago Press, 2005).

49. Renee Cameto and others, "Transition Planning for Students with Disability: A Special Topic Report

of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)" (Menio Park, Calif.: SRI

International, 2004).

50. Paul Wehman, "Life beyond the Classroom: Transition Strategies for Young People with Disabihties"

(Baltimore: Brookes Publishing, 2006).

51. Lynn Newman and others, "Comparisons across Time of the Outcomes of Youths with Disabilities up

to Four Years after High School: A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study

(NLTS) and National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2010-3008)" (Menlo Park, Calif.:

SRI International, 2010).

52. Pamela Loprest and Elaine Maag, "The Relationship between Early Disabihty Onset and Education and

Employment" (Washington: Urban Institute, 2003).

53. Wagner and others, "Changes over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities" (see

note 44).

54. David Johnson and others, "Current Challenges Facing Secondary Education and Transition Services:

What Research Tells Us," Exceptional Children 68, no. 4 (2002): 519-31.

55. Osgood, Foster, and Courtney, "Vulnerable Populations and the Transition to Adulthood" (see note 2).

56. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, "A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education

for Children and Their Famihes" (Washington: 2002), p. 2.

57. U.S. Department of Education, "Determination Letters on State Implementation of the IDEA"

(www2.ed.gov/print/pohcy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/factsheet.html).

58. Chester E. Finn and others. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (Washington: Thomas B.

Fordham Institute and Progressive Policy Institute, 2001); American Youth Pohcy Forum and Center for

Education Pohcy, "Twenty-Five Years of Educating Children with Disabilities: The Good News and the

• " VOL. 22 / NO. 1 / SPRING 2 0 1 2 1 2 1


Work Ahead" (Washington: American Youth Policy Forum 2001); President's Commission on Excellence in

Special Education, "A New Era" (see note 56).

59. Consortium for Citizens wth Disabilities, "CGD Statement on Release of Report from the President's

Commission on Excellence in Special Education" (Washington, July 9, 2002).


Copyright of Future of Children is the property of Future of Children and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Disability and Education System