sped history and fallacy

SteinbachSpring 2014

SPECIAL EDUCATION: History and the Fallacy of Transition

Special Education! The two words alone conjure myriad preconceived notions. The

word “retarded” pops into the mind of many people. Others see those who are unable to

communicate in one fashion or another as “lesser human beings,” if human at all. Still more see

people with physical disabilities, and immediately think they are unable to do certain “normal”

tasks. All of the thoughts people have with regard to students with special needs must be

mitigated in some manner.

Transition, on the other hand, though a federally mandated part of one of the most

important education laws in United States history, barely raises an eyebrow. In the U. S., special

education has been through a long and arduous journey, one which is far from complete.

Transition, though it has been on the books since 1990, is still in its infancy. This paper will

explore in some depth the history of special education generally and transition more specifically.

Special Education is a continuum term that includes services in myriad ways, all in an

individualized manner.1 Free Appropriate Public Education, or FAPE, was and is the “buzz

terminology” regarding the continuum of services which range from fully inclusive classroom

settings to total involuntary institutionalization.2 Gifted students are on that scale as well as those

who have less ability to function.3 The focus of this particular paper is on the plight of older

students who have been afforded their rights as adults to determine their educational path by

federal law.4 Transition, which was enacted as part of the 1997 amendments that included the

change from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 to the Individuals with

Disabilities Act,5 is the tool through which students move from high school to the adult portion

of their lives.6 Transition is an important, though underused and often misunderstood, part of the

1


process through which our most vulnerable citizens go after they leave secondary education.7

This paper will walk through the history of special education and discuss the laws as they have

progressed in the United States, then it will focus on Transition Plans and their need as an

integral process in the life-long education of people who have disabilities.

Introduction

While our country has made great strides since the 1970s with regard to how we treat

individuals who have disabilities8, there are many people who still do not receive the services

they need. The advent of the latest version Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in

20049 including the most recent amendments published in 200610 helped to ensure that students

with special needs were given an even better chance to succeed in a manner like that of their

general education peers.11 Schools were mandated by IDEA to provide various accommodations

in order to ensure that students with disabilities could function in the classroom without the

segregation that had been the norm until that time.12 The problem is that, though mandated by

IDEA, many parents do not know what the law means to them and their children.13 Even beyond

that, the students are often without any knowledge of their own rights. There is a very large

group of students who are in need of assistance, but they are older and have no one sans

themselves on which to rely. The fact is that we have failed some of the individuals who need us

most and as such have created a societal issue that special education was put in place to correct.

The transition from high school to adulthood is a particularly vexing portion of the

special education laws.14 Although a plan is required by federal law for the transition, it is often

nothing more than a cursory portion of the Individualized Educational Program, or Plan, (IEP)

document. 15 A transition plan is required by the time the student reaches that age of sixteen and

2


recommended by the time of her/his fourteenth birthday.16 Some states such as Massachusetts17

and even particular school districts, such as Shaker Heights in the Cleveland, Ohio area have

mandated the fourteen year-old requirement.18 The problem lies in the fact that IDEA is a

federally mandated program that is largely underfunded.19 (cite) One wants to believe that school

systems are actually making a good faith effort to make meaningful plans, but things do not

always turn out as we wish. Though a transition plan is required for each student receiving

special education services who has reached the age of sixteen, or will by the time of his/her next

IEP20, according the underfunded mandate that is the Individuals with Disabilities Education

(Improvement) Act (IDEA); the plans are often, if not usually, composed with little hope of

correct or even partial implementation, which is an immense disservice to a student graduating

from high school and entering the next phase of his/her life.

The entire purpose of the special education laws that have been in effect since the 1970s

was to ensure as even a footing as possible for the children who have varying degrees of

disability.21 Although the truth of the matter is that most will never be on even footing, schools

are actually supposed to strive for that lofty goal, at least in theory. The best most of our children

can truthfully expect is to find that passionate someone who takes an interest and helps students

learn to work within their disabilities and do the best they are able and quite often much better

than they think. Transition services for the transition from high school into adult life are one

more tool to help students do-just-that.22 And if used correctly they can be a powerful tool, but

that is the issue. Transition plans are rarely put together well or even with any true expectation

that they will be followed with any certainty.

History

3


A trip through the history of what today we call special education is on order for us to

have any idea as to how far we have come in a scant couple hundred years. Though, of course

there is still a great deal more work to do.

People have, in the past as well as today, treated those who have disabilities as lesser

humans and have rarely thought much of it until relatively recently. In fact, it was not until 1784

that a man by the name of Valentin Huay started the Institution for Blind Children after seeing a

group of blind men being exhibited in Paris at the St. Ovid’s Fair in 1771 as side show freaks.23

After he decided to attempt to help one blind child learn the standard alphabet by making a large

raised board with the letters on it that helped him grasp the concepts, he applied for and was

granted a license to teach twelve French youth and the modern education of the blind era in the

Western World was born.24 Huay had patterned his school on that of another French

Enlightenment thinker who was working wonders with the deaf and dumb, Abbot de l’Epée.25 In

1801 Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard came up with many of the methods still used today in the

education of those having cognitive disabilities.26 A movie by the French director Francios

Truffaut called “l’Enfant Sauvage (The Wild Child) showed some of the worst of the early

attempts at education of children with differences 27 His work with the so called “Wild Boy of

Aveyron” helped him to systematically and by trial and error determine methods to educate a

boy with seemingly no social skills. 28 Along with Huay, Abbot de l’Epée , and Itard another

very influential person in the special education world was Louis Braille who in 1819 had come

up with his version of a blind touch based alphabet based upon a military “night writing” concept

which allowed soldiers to “see” written instructions in the dark.29 He had lost his sight before he

was ten and came up with Braille, which is still used today in basically the same form by the

time he was 16.30 The enlightenment, therefore, was a major turning point in more than just

4


thought. The thinkers of that time period were integral in the better treatment of human beings

and the eventual upgrading of the human condition as a whole.

Education of and Services for Persons with Disabilities in the United States

In 1817 education strictly for people who had disabilities was finally begun in the United

States.31 Thomas H. Gallaudet opened the doors of his Asylum for the Education of Deaf and

Dumb Persons, known today as the American School for the Deaf, on April 15, 1817 marking

what is probably the most notable beginning of education for people with disabilities in the

United States. 32 Although deaf education and that for those with visual disabilities was thought

of as a worthy cause, it was not until Helen Keller that the public realized educational

possibilities much beyond deafness and blindness.33 Although stricken with a disease that left her

deaf and blind when she was just 19 months old, Helen, with the help of Anne Sullivan, the

dedicated tutor her parents hired in 1887 when she was seven, graduated magna cum laude from

Radcliff College.34 After her triumph, Helen dedicated her life to ensuring that people with

disabilities were looked upon differently by speaking to congress as well as people and

organizations throughout the world.35 Her life was and still is an inspiration to many people in

every corner of the globe because she was living proof that even severely disabled people could

succeed and do so beyond anyone’s wildest expectations.

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries brought many extreme changes

throughout almost every facet of life in the United States. Alexander Graham Bell invented the

telephone in 1872 at the school he opened for deaf teachers.36 His invention was meant to help

deaf teachers and students “see” the spoken word, but it accidentally became the precursor of

what is the modern phone. 37 Helen Keller began her journey through Radcliff and her ultimate

special education “ambassadorship” through the world.38 People with physical disabilities were

5


no longer looked upon as worthless and were actually seen as contributing members of society,

largely because of the returning soldiers from World War I.39 People with disabilities were being

seen as worthwhile contributing members of society for the first time in United States history.

Of course, with the positives there are also invariably negatives. While there were great

strides with regard to some segments of disabled society, there were huge missteps with regard to

others. In the early twentieth century the eugenics movement hit it beginning stride.40 . In 1907

Indiana became the first state in the union to enact a eugenic sterilization law aimed at

“confirmed idiots, imbeciles and rapists” in state institutions.41 Many other states in the union

soon followed suit.42 In fact, in 1927 the United States Supreme Court, in a ruling that has yet to

be overturned, stated that compulsory sterilization was constitutional.43 One of our most

respected Justices and arguably most gifted orators, Oliver Wendell Holmes even opined,

“(It) is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”44

It is difficult to believe that more harsh words have been spoken in such proverbially modern

times, but as we have seen some things moved forward while others moved drastically in the

wrong direction.

In order to illustrate the polarization of the movement for normalization of people with

disabilities we must look no further than what was happening in the 1910s and 20s. There was

“constitutional sterilization” in 1927 for mental defectives as seen in Buck v Bell.45 At the same

general time there were disabled veterans returning from The Great War forcing Congress to

pass the first rehabilitation program for disabled soldiers in 1918.46 In 1920 congress passed a

bill funding vocational training and counseling for the general public under the umbrella term of

6


vocational rehabilitation called the Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act or Smith-Fess Act.47

Even private citizens and organizations were getting involved. In 1919, Edgar Allen a

businessman from Elyria, OH started an organization, the Ohio Society for Crippled Children,

which would eventually become the national Easter Seals.48 On one side of the coin, the public is

more than willing to help those with physical disabilities or those caused by war, while in the

same breath Americans had no problem requiring sterilization for people who had put into

institutions for whatever reason was given.

The late 1920s through the 1940s saw most of the same things as had happened in the

two decades prior. There were two notable exceptions to the helping only the physically disabled

mantra. In the 1918 a part of the rehabilitation program directed at returning veterans49 was for

those who had returned “shell shocked” which was a precursor to what we now call Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder.50 Another exception, though not widely known, was the hypothesis

by Samuel Orton in 1925, that dyslexia was a neurological disorder not one of visual basis.51

Dyslexia, contrary to popular belief, is nothing more than an inability to read in the manner most

people think of as normal.52 It comes in many forms but not a single one is dyslexia; they are all

under the umbrella of the word.53 As the country grew more sophisticated, the thoughts regarding

the varying types and degree of disability were also going through changes.

Though the public perception of those with disabilities was changing, there were still

many hurdles a person who had a disability had to overcome. As has already been discussed,

those with physical disabilities were more accepted by the public, but not completely. In 1932

the United States elected its first disabled president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR).54

FDR contracted what was believed to be polio in 1921 and was confined to a wheel chair for the

rest of his life.55 Most Americans had no knowledge of his disability, though, because the lower

7


half of his body was often hidden in public or he was filmed and/or photographed seated.56

FDR’s presidency was one of dichotomy. On the one hand, the president signed into law the

Social Security Act in 1935 which allowed for permanent assistance for adults with disabilities.57

During that same year the Work Progress Administration (WPA), one of FDR’s many projects

aimed at bringing America out of the Great Depression, had been allowed to discriminate against

those having physical disabilities by stating that people with physical disabilities were

“unemployable.”58 The discriminatory practice of the WPA’s application process sparked a nine

day sit-in by 300 members of the League for the Physically Handicapped.59 Once again, the

public’s perception was of any disability making the person less human even though FDR was

elected three times.

The 1950s was a time of awakening in the United States for numerous reasons, mostly

due to participation in and the ending of World War II. Once again the youth of the country were

coming back from defending the United Sates with horrific disabilities.60 In the 1950s the

Veterans Administration, along with other entities such as the National Easter Seals Society,

championed an effort to enact national legislation that would ensure that people with physical

disabilities had easier access to buildings by making them “barrier-free.”61 The 1950s also saw

the advent of the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC), which was started in order to change

the preconceived ideas of the public.62 The ARC was and educational organization that sought to

teach parents and others about individuals with developmental disabilities and their ability to

succeed in life.63 They also worked to help individuals who have intellectual disabilities to obtain

the supports and services they needed in order to live and thrive in their own communities.64 The

time was nigh for people with other types of disabilities to find a voice since many people with

cognitive differences were institutionalized prior to the 1950s.

8


The 1960s were even more important to the normalization of people with all types of

disabilities than almost any decade in history until that point. In 1961 the American Standards

Association published the first accessibility standard for making all buildings accessible to those

with disabilities.65 Just two years later congress passed an act that set aside money for the

implementation of state developmental disabilities councils as well as advocacy and protection

systems.66 In 1965 Medicaid was created to help low income and disabled people with access to

health care that they had been denied previously.67 1968 saw two exciting enhancements in the

lives of people with disabilities. After its founding in approximately 1962 by Eunice Kennedy

Shriver, the Special Olympics held it first international games in Chicago.68 The other major

move toward helping people with disabilities access the things everyone else could was an act

that required all buildings leased, constructed, designed or altered with federal government funds

to be made accessible to people with physical disabilities.69 The tide had truthfully begun to

change in the favor of the people who needed the most help.

Steps Toward Egalitarian Education in the United States

The Brown decisions are probably what should be deemed as the beginnings of

egalitarian education in the United States. 70 The first Brown decision overturned Plessy v.

Ferguson, a nearly 60 year-old case that upheld state laws requiring separate schools, as well as

other public places in society, and claiming they were equal regardless of their separation.71 In a

unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the mere concept of separate but equal was

inherently unequal.72 In what was termed Brown II, the court decided that District Courts were to

be the watchdogs of enforcing school desegregation orders “with all deliberate speed.”73 The

Supreme Court had made a decision that was proactive and a heretofore unheard of equitable

9


remedy that was to have unprecedented ramifications throughout the educational systems

prevalent up to that point.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President

Lyndon Johnson in 1965.74 Although the act was originally legislated in order to alleviate the

inequities of education with regard to children from low income families, amendments were

added in 196675 to specifically address the issues surrounding students with disabilities.76 There

were two parts to these amendments one of which provided for the Bureau of Education of the

Handicapped and the National Advisory Council for the benefit of students having disabilities.77

The second amendment to ESEA created Title VI which directly provided for state grants to fund

education of exceptional students.78 With ESEA the march toward the modern era had begun.

Each successive decade brought more protections and mandates for the protection of

persons with disabilities. The Education for all Handicapped Act of 1974 was an expansion of

ESEA’s Title VI.79 In 1975 President Gerald Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped

Children (emphasis added) Act into law.80 The act was known country-wide by those educators

working with students who had special needs by its congressional number: PL 94-142.81 The

Education for All Handicapped Children Act was enacted to give states an incentive to create

policies and practices that would help ensure that he needs of students with special needs were

being met.82 In order to obtain federal funding states were required to comply with six specific

mandates:83

1. Zero Reject and a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) meant that EVERY child with special needs in entitled to receive free and appropriate public school education. (note to the nebulousness of free and appropriate)

2. Nondiscriminatory Identification and Evaluation was very important at this time because many students with disabilities were not being identified as children with special needs.

3. Individualized Education Program is designed to provide each student with a disability a specific and meaningful educational program.

10


4. The Least Restrictive Environment was the setting in which students with disabilities could benefit the most from.

5. Due Process gives people the right to challenge disability programs in hearings. (note 14th amendment notice and a right to be heard)

6. Parental Participation requires parents or guardians to be actively involved in their child’s education.84

The next major update in the education of students with Disabilities was the “enactment” of

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990.85 IDEA was not actually a new

law, it was more correctly amendments to the Education of All Handicapped Children Act,

which, along with the IDEA Amendments of 1997 added some very important wording that had

been missing in the earlier Act.86 (note PL 105-17 the 1997 Amendments) While the Education

for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) mandated services for students aged three

through twenty-one years, it had very little built in with regard to the manner in which services

were to be delivered, therefore it lack any specified accountability.87 Another Issue with PL 94-

142 was that he original legislation neglected services for children younger than three and

anything that would help those over twenty-one.88 The 1986 Amendments to The Education of

All Handicapped Children Act provided for services starting at birth, which took care of one end

of the spectrum.89 The 1997 Amendments of IDEA took care of the end of schooling part of the

spectrum by discussing and mandating greater transitional services for students who had been

school under an Individualized Education Program (IEP).90 There were some very specific

changes in the wording which for a better understanding of exactly what transition was.91 The

text follows:

The term "transition services" means a coordinated set of activities for a student, with a disability, that: (A) is designed within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post-school activities, including post secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community privation; (B) is based on the student's needs, taking into account the student's preferences and interests; (C) includes instruction, related services, community

11


experiences, the development of employment and other post-school objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation (section 602).92

The wording of the above section is far from being nebulous, yet the manner(s) in which

it is followed are myriad.

Some Statistics

Even though every student who has an IEP also has a transition plan that is part of the

document, those students are at an increased risk of dropping out of high school or finishing

completely unprepared for life as an individual adult.93 According to research:

37.6% of high school dropouts have a learning disability.

61.2% of high school dropouts have some type of behavioral or emotional disorder.

36.2 % percent of South Carolina State inmates have a disability.

24.4% of federally incarcerated individuals have a disability.

Up to 75% of those in the juvenile justice system have one or more disabilities.94

The above numbers may shock the conscience, but they are, from the research, the truth. Even

though things have gotten better, it is clear that there are still changes needed.

Studies that correctly quantify youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system are

difficult to find because the definition of what constitutes a disability is in constant flux. A

relatively recent study, which was in 2003, suggests that there were nearly 100,000 youth

confined to a residential setting on any given day in the United States but that number is not

delineated according to disability.95 One study suggested that between 45% and 75% of those

incarcerated have one or more disabilities.96 The studies tend to agree with one specific issue.

12


While less than ten percent of the youth in the country have one or more disabilities, upwards of

30% of those incarcerated reside within the same demographic.97 Youth with disabilities are

overrepresented in the justice system on at least a three to one basis.98 Great strides have been

made in the area of specified education for students with disabilities, yet they are often

misunderstood with regard to what they need to more readily participate in society. Buying in to

the educational system and transition therefrom is one manner in which the trend will reverse.

Some Best Practices

There are always pockets of greatness amongst the norms of society. Special education

transition services are no different, due to the fact that there are many excellent programs in

place as well as those that show potential. For instance, South Carolina’s Family Resource

Center for Disabilities and Special Needs has a Transition Toolkit for students and parents that

works as a guide through the process of transitioning from high school to life beyond.99

The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center, based at the University

of North Carolina-Charlotte is an organization that disseminates information throughout the

country with regard to best practices using evidenced based tools that have been proven to help

the outcomes of transition from high school to adulthood.100 Although not “best practices” per se,

the NSTTAC provides information to school systems and others having a stake in the education

of the country’s youth101 that will help them develop the practices that have been shown to make

a difference.

The Reality of Transition

13


Transition services as termed under IDEA are nothing more than a pipe dream. Though a

lay person may see what is within the statute as a mandate, and it is, in practice things are not

done the way they should be, by and large. In over twenty years working in Special Education as

well as teaching parenting classes and disability awareness, nothing much has changed and, in

fact, much has gotten worse. There are, or have been, pockets of brilliance in some areas of the

country, even as close as Fort Mill, South Carolina where they HAD a Transition Task Force. As

often happens, the task force was disbanded due to federal as well as local funding cuts. The

ideal is that the most vulnerable students have a fighting chance to become and remain

productive citizens in their communities or elsewhere of they are able. The reality is that the

ideal is no more than an ideal in many, if not most instances.

IEP conferences, and the IEP itself, are supposed to be about the individual, as the first

letter (word) states very clearly. When an IEP conference is held all of the proverbial

stakeholders are to be in attendance. What is mandated is the attendance and, supposedly, a team

approach to the education of the student. The transition plan for an older student should be one of

the, if not the, most important components of the conference. Truthfully it should be the majority

of what is discussed as the student nears graduation from high school and pending post-

secondary life.

Transition Plans are far from the rocket science concept that has been shown in most

instances thus far. In numerous studies, which have been spoken of here, transition from one

place to another is rife with difficulties for the most capable of people. It is of course much less

facile for those having certain types of cognitive, as well as physical and multiple disabilities.

Though transition for those reentering society after a stint in jail or prison is almost considered a

given, yet not required or mandated in most jurisdictions, has had a very positive impact on

14


alleviating recidivism, those plans that are mandated for students have barely been used and

certainly not correctly.

The Transition Plan that is included in the IEP since the late 1990s and of course the

2004 reauthorization has a specific format that was developed in studies conducted by the

Federal Government and implemented by incubator school districts over the years but has not

changed much since the mandate came down in 1997. The plan includes some very basic tenets

that are to be followed when creating the yearly IEP. Beginning at age fourteen, which is a farce

to begin with, the meeting should discuss the student’s needs, preferences and interests, as well

as courses of study with which to help him/her attain those goals. By the age of sixteen the plan

is supposed to be more specific in that it is to also include “measurable postsecondary goals” that

are based upon some manner of post-secondary interest surveys related to interests, education,

employment, and/or independent living skills. Along with the above, students are to be assisted

inn linking with other agencies that might help ensure those goals are met. This should not be a

difficult task but it seems that schools and IEP teams most importantly, drop the ball.

The first issue in the development stage(s) is that the students is much too young at the

age of fourteen to have any realistic idea as to what he or she might want to do by the time high

school is at an end. I would defy you to find many general education students who are cognizant

enough of their future to be able to accurately predict where they may be by graduation.

Although it is a good idea to garner a general idea and to look at the student’s ambitions, the

requirement of the plan and the implementation of that plan at fourteen is just too early for most

students. The early plan is no more than the tracking that used to be done in most schools prior to

the enactment of 94-142. It makes a determination of what classes “should” be taken or whether

the students should be involved in vocational education. Many students have not yet begun to

15


understand the implications of the future by fourteen and, therefore, do not have the wherewithal

to determine for themselves, or with help, the trajectory their future will take. Being tracked does

nothing more than force students into classes that may not have been in their best interests.

Sixteen is a more appropriate age for these plans to be put to work, because children are

more apt, psychologically, to understand the future ramifications of current decisions. Of course,

there is the issue of those students who are working under an IEP and their likelihood of

dropping out much earlier than their “regularly developing” peers, which is most likely one of

the reasons for the earlier age. No age is set in stone as the best time by which to begin planning

for life after high school, and as with most laws an age is set in order to make decisions a bit

easier. The totality of the circumstances test should be used instead. Again, the concept of an

INDIVIDUALIZED Education Program is that it is to be written for the individual.

The fact that the student is to be part of the planning process is often overlooked. As an

example Charlotte-Mecklenberg School’s IEP form lists the student last on the participation

signature page as attested by this photo:

16


17


By the time a student is at the age of transition, he or she should be listed first, regardless

of level of functioning. A student’s ability will absolutely determine his/her participation in the

process, but to have the parent second to last and the student last is a proverbial slap in the face

to the process. In fact, by the time a student reaches the sixteen year old mark, he/she will most

likely have only one more IEP before the transfer of rights happens. IDEA as well as most states

transfer rights under the law to students upon reaching the age of majority as well as require that

parents and students be informed of the transfer one year prior to attaining the age of eighteen.

Since the student is to obtain his/her IDEA rights, he/she should be a part of the process, and

arguably the most important part, as soon as he/she is able to meaningfully participate.

The mandate for determination of how to go about obtaining the services need for

successful transition is a particularly vexing issue. The mandate is that services must be included

in the IEP that address how a student will reach the intended goals and those agencies that will

have various responsibilities for fulfillment of the stated goals. The only requirement is that there

be a “statement” of interagency responsibilities. A statement is easy, but the reality is that while

there are numerous agencies that are available to help students with disabilities, obtaining buy-in

and requiring them to be listed on a legal document is another thing altogether. As the law stands

now, there is no requirement that any agency stated in the IEP actually provide any of the

services which are planned. In practice, it is very rare when a representative of any outside

agency even knows that said agency is part of a transition plan let alone being part of the

decision making process. Many times the agencies which are discussed, if they are even

discussed at all, do not have the resources that become part of the IEP and are, therefore unable

to provide their part of the plan. The truth of the matter is that external agencies are integral parts

of the transition process and must be at least contacted if the plan is expected to take fruition.

18


Many high school Special Education Educators have had numerous contacts with

external agencies. Most of those have a working relationship with representatives of

organizations such as the courts, social services, the rehabilitation office, vocational schools and

community colleges. Often times, though, when brought up at an IEP meeting, those contacts

and the possibility of having organizations join in the planning are negated by administrators

who do not “have the time” do sit in a lengthy meeting. Special Educator and their knowledge

base, which is quite regularly much beyond that of their job description, are a wealth

understanding which is underused by school systems at large. To have an administrator who has

very little working knowledge of Special Education, if any, take the role of School District

Representative is a travesty with regard to the most vulnerable students in any school system.

Once a student’s high school education has come to an end, often the school feels that its

job is done. The external agencies that are written into the IEP are supposed to take on the next

portion of the student’s development without any knowledge thereof. To change the gap that is

inherent in the current process, such agencies need to be a definitive part of the transition

process. The meetings will take more time in preparation, but ultimately they will mean more for

the success of the students. The students are the entire reason for the laws and they should be

afforded REALISTIC transition services that will ensure they are able to function to the best of

their ability(s) in society.

Solutions

The attempted normalization of all students has been a massive disservice to those who

have the greatest need. Most schools almost require a college bound curriculum which is fine for

the relatively small percentage that actually graduate from college. The percentage that goes is

relatively high but those who graduate is small. While the truth that most people need some type

19


of extra training after high school in order to be competitive, it should not be a requirement.

Training while still in high school would save valuable time and money for the students as well

as society as a whole. The sad fact is that high schools have remained mostly stagnant for the last

150 years or have gone backwards, but there are solutions which are far from difficult. Students

thrive in environments where they feel worth and are treated with human dignity. The

normalization process has taken away that dignity and forced a community of homogeneity. A

homogenous populace is not what there is in America, therefore individualization must make a

comeback.

It may seem that the ability to fix the education system in the United States is

insurmountable, and in many ways it is. But there are relatively simple ways to make great

strides. What makes things difficulty is that most of the solutions have already been attempted

and to varying degrees of success. Many a successful program has helped the student with

special needs make great strides. Alas, as is the way of the world and especially social services

entities, money talks. When the economy slows, so does the willingness of the public to fund the

most basic needs of the less fortunate. Since a great deal of education is funded by local property

taxes, new or continuing programs loss funding and/or are cut to almost non-workable budgets.

One way that the country could fix the educational disparities, not only for students with special

needs but those in less affluent districts, would be to change the funding structure so that schools

are more equal in their funding. The Brown cases mentioned previously were supposed to do that

but in reality there are now a great deal of separate and absolutely unequal school, mostly in the

poorer inner-city districts purely because of funding difficulties. It seems like such a simple task,

yet society, though quite vocal, is unwilling to change the status quo. Of course, it will take a

20


shift in the priorities of the public to act rather than just talk and the changes would not happen

quickly, but the concept is exceedingly simple.

There are other areas of greatness in special education. The traditional trade schools that

were housed in many high schools twenty years ago were excellent tools to help teach some of

the lower functioning students a trade that they liked and in which they could excel. As society

became less manufacturing and more service oriented, those schools and the vocational programs

began to disappear. Although it is true that many districts have formed consortia vocational

districts, too many of the students who have the greatest need are unable to participate due to

issues such as transportation or the often highly competitive nature of acceptance. Such in-house

vocational programs were transitional without ever being called “transitional.” Those programs

were and still are some of the most important post-high school preparedness courses in which

any high school student could participate and have “real world” skills upon graduation.

Vocational Programs available to every student especially those who have special needs is yet

another seemingly simple solution to the problem of ensuring meaningful transition from high

school to post-secondary living.

Transition as it specifically relates to IDEA and the IEP process is arguably the least

difficult solution of all. When Congress decided to add a transition plan to IDEA 2004 and the

latter amendments, it was obvious that here were becoming a huge section of the population who

were unprepared for life after high school and lacking in the ability to show any realistic gains in

the general college experience. The after No Child Left Behind came on the scene, it took what

little growth was happening on the Special Education front and generally went back to the pre-

Brown era by allowing discrimination directed as students with special needs. The advent of the

standardized testing requirements that put students with special needs at an immediate and

21


untenable disadvantage started discrimination that was not only tolerated, it was mandated.

Although each state deals with things differently, most delineate a graduation diploma for those

having special needs from those of the general population. Conversations from coast to coast

could be heard with arguments from the general education side saying that it was unfair for their

children’s hard(er) work to be negated by giving the “slow kids” that same diploma. The other

side, of course countered by saying that their children work just as diligently if not more so in

order to achieve what they did. There is not easy answer to that debacle, but if, as is stated

constantly by the research, students need more training after high school to be competitive, the

argument appears to be moot.

Special Education transition services are set to begin at a relatively young age in a

student’s life. Fourteen, as has been stated earlier, is most likely psychologically too you to begin

the process as mandated by IDEA, but of course it must be an individualized decision. It is not

necessarily wrong to begin planning for a student’s future success at a young age which may be

even younger than fourteen, but it must be done in stages and be realistic for the student, not the

school or system. The transition plan has to be more than an “on paper” plan. By the time a

student is ready to transition from the relative ease of high school to the stress of the adult world

he/she should have already had some experiences in the world of the post-secondary human

being. Special Education Departments needs to bring a different tack to the last years of a

student’s high school experience. So often the students are sheltered from the general day to day

activities in their schools that they have little ability to function within their own schools let

alone with the general public. Job coaching, job shadowing, vocational training and true

inclusion into certain aspects of school life have all been around for decades but are rarely used

as the tool they could be in order to foster understanding among students. Often they are one

22


time or short lived experiences and have little to do with the individual student’s hope and

dreams.

A transition plan must include the appropriate extra-curricular representatives. Social

workers, Rehabilitation Agencies, Goodwill, the YMCA, local non-profits, as well as the local

companies (of which there are many as long as one takes the time to look) that hire students and

adults with special needs are all available to help as long as they know they are needed. While it

is true that such a change in the manner by which plans are constructed will take time and

possibly extra funding, there a plethora of organizations and non-profit companies which already

work with youth. Those organizations, though, are usually for the people who have left high

school, either because they dropped out or other unfortunate events, rather than attempting to

catch them prior to leaving the schools. If the above mentioned organizations know of a need and

are given the proper incentive, such as a school system providing a teacher or specialist, they will

often create a program where one did not previously exist. The benefits to the students and to

society are innumerable when students are helped to understand their capabilities before they get

into trouble and ensuring a proactive and multi-organizational transition plan that has specified

outcomes will go a very long way to alleviating the plight of students with special needs. It may

still take time but changes in the way the system has worked thus far must happen quickly

because we have already lost a few generations and it is past time to mitigate those losses and

turn the tide.

23


Signs of the Times:

“NOTICE: The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) is no longer in operation. Our funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) ended on September 30, 2013. Our website and all its free resources will remain available until September 30, 2014.” (http://nichcy.org)

Note: The National High School Center was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education that ended March 31st, 2013. The website and its free resources will remain available, but content and external links will no longer be updated after 3/31/13. For more information, see our homepage, (www.betterhighschools.org)

24

1 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C § 1411-1418 (1975)2 Id.3 Id.4 Id.5 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C 1400 (1975)6 Id.7 Id.8 Id.9 Id.10 Id.11 Id.12 Id.13 Id.14 Id.15 Id.16 http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/olm/manuals/dsb/vr/man/Transition%20Services.htm17 http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/13_1ta.html18 http://www.shaker.org/TransitionServices.aspx19 http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/individuals-disabilities-education-act-overview20 20 U.S.C § 1411-1418 (1975)21 Id.22 Id.23 http://www.avh.asso.fr/rubrics/association/biographies.php?langue=eng24 Id.25 Id. 26 http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/itard.shtml 27 “L’Enfant Sauvage,” Les Films du Carrosse, Director, Francios Truffaut, 197028 http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/itard.shtml29 http://www.avh.asso.fr/rubrics/association/biographies.php?langue=eng30 Id. 31 http://www.avh.asso.fr/rubrics/association/biographies.php?langue=eng32 Id.33 http://www.hki.org/about-helen-keller/helen-kellers-life/34 Id.35 Id.36 http://www.start-american-sign-language.com/alexander-graham-bell.html37 Id.38 http://www.hki.org/about-helen-keller/helen-kellers-life/39 http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/2011-12-15/research/rehabilitating-soldiers-after-war40 http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html41 http://www.iupui.edu/~eugenics/42 http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html43 Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)44 Id.45Id. 46 http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/four/rehab_act/rehab1.html (Marking what may be seen as the beginning of a type of transition for the returning disabled soldiers) 47 http://www.in.gov/fssa/files/History_and_Regulations.pdf48 http://www.rotaryfirst100.org/history/history/otherorganizations/easterseals/#.U17b48HD9Ms49 http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/four/rehab_act/rehab1.html50 Id.51 http://www.pitt.edu/~perfetti/PDF/Vellutino%20&%20Fletcher.pdf52 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dyslexia53 Id.54 http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/polio.html55 Id.56 Id.57 http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html58 http://www.disabilityworld.org/10-12_00/il/league.htm

http://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/four/rehab_act/rehab1.html

59 Id.60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabled_American_Veterans61 http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udhistory.htm62 http://www.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=234063 Id.64 Id.65 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap1.cfm (ANSI A117.1)66 http://research.archives.gov/description/299883 (P. L. 88-164)67 http://www.medicaidfrontpage.com/medicaid-timeline68 http://www.specialolympics.org/history.aspx69http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap1.cfm (Architectural Barriers Act- P.L. 93-112)70 Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955).71 Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).72 347 U.S. 483.73 349 U.S. 294.74 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 196575 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act (P. L. 89-750)76 Id.77 Id.78 Id.79 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf80 Id.81 Id.82 Id.83 Id.84 The 6th mandate is much easier said than done because many of the parents do not have the necessary knowledge or skills to participate in the process as well as is needed to ensure correct educational goals and outcomes for the student. http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.zipkin/the_education_for_all_handicapped_children_act85 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990)-P. L. 101-47686 87 http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.zipkin/the_education_for_all_handicapped_children_act88 Office of Special Education Programs- History: Twenty-Five Years of Progress in Educating Children with Disabilities Through IDEA89 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89-Pg773.pdf90 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-17)91 Id.92 http://web.mnstate.edu/severson/MDEIDEA.html93 Id.94 http://betterhighschools.org95 http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/asp/Age_Sex.asp96 http://ericec.org/digests/e621.html97 http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/asp/Age_Sex.asp98 Id.99 (http://www.frcdsn.org/TransitionToolkit.pdf) though at over 250 pages, this is more than the average parent can digest or be expected to know and is daunting for most people let alone those who may have a disabling condition themselves.100 http://www.nsttac.org/content/about-nsttac101 Id. (and, in truth, who is the country or the world for that matter does not have a stake in the outcomes of the education of youth?)

http://www.frcdsn.org/TransitionToolkit.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_and_Secondary_Education_Act

http://research.archives.gov/description/299883

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap1.cfm

Documents

sped history and fallacy