A Paradigm Shift in Special Education

Donald J. Frazier, Ph.D.Region 9 Educational Cooperative

A Paradigm Shift Has Occurred in Special Education

• Driven by the reforms inherent in the IDEA Act, the way special education services is viewed has changed substantially.

• The number of children identified as having a disability was deemed excessive (in 2006, most N.M. school districts had a special education population above 20%). This was disproportionate to known disability rates in the medical realm.

• The new goal, as implied by the federally facilitated Rti model, is between 1% to 5%. NOTE: The PED has a gradually decreasing cap on what is considered a reasonable number of students in special education (with sub-variables).

• By this thinking, many children have been inaccurately labeled as disabled in order to help them procure academic support services.

• The SAT team will now develop the support programming for many of the children formerly placed in special education (using Tier 1 and 2 methods).

“Old School” Thinking About Special Education Eligibility and Services

• From the creation of Special Education in the 50’s and 60’s until the recent past, SPED was perceived by many teachers and parents as a social entitlement full of benefits and was viewed as a “humane” option for struggling students. Special education and related services were considered as a positive channel for helping struggling students.

• Special Education for slower students was more convenient option for many general education staff, who were most comfortable teaching non-disabled students working at or near grade level. Children who were falling behind required extra assistance and individualized instruction, which was far more time consuming and difficult to provide with large class sizes.

• As such, in order to maximize the chances of each student qualifying, it routinely occurred that diagnosticians and other related service evaluators did the following “helpful” things - corners were cut, numbers were rounded up/down, new tests were administered when the initial tests didn’t work and test/norm selection was made with the goal of qualifying in mind.

• A student was tested in all areas, even if concerns were more narrow (dredge testing).

• Some general education staff joined in this process by exaggerating the severity of problems, minimizing cognizance of strengths and learning style differences and lobbying for “fast track” placement in SPED.

• If all else failed, the EDT/IEP team used the “professional judgment” option in order to place a student in special education or to line up related support services

“Old School” Thinking About Special Education Eligibility and Services - Continued

• Educational impact and the need for services was rarely discussed at placement/eligibility meetings, much less documented.

• Special factors, such as different language, different culture, socio-economic or medical issues were given perfunctory consideration in making eligibility determination decisions. As a result, many children who did not actually have a true disability were placed in special education and labeled with disabilities (e.g,. culturally different, bilingual, family income struggles, severe environmental stress).

• Related service supports were often provided for many students in special education without

significant need. In fact, itt was not uncommon for academic or related support service to be added without formal evaluation, “on the spot,” at the IEP meeting (based upon testimonial data).

• The categories with the most over-identification and inappropriately high levels of related service support were:

– Specific Learning Disability – Speech and Language Impairment– Other Health Impairment.

• Ethnic minorities were placed in special education at an excessive rate.

• “Implicit personality theory” research (social psychology) and surveys showed that teacher/parent perceptions of and expectations for could be impacted by being in special education.

“New School” Thinking About Special Education Eligibility and Services

• The federal government has, through the IDEA Act, legislated that special education should be provided to only those students with seriously debilitating disabilities that impact academic and functional success to a significant degree. The target level is 1-5% of all students.

• By this new model, all students are expected to make noticeable and documentable progress towards working at grade level during each school year, including students in special education. Those students who formerly were often tossed “softball” goals are now expected to make significant gains towards grade level proficiency while in special education, with the goal of a “quick as possible” exit from SPED.

• Special Education academic and related services are now considered “more restrictive” than general education (rather than a “humane” entitlement) and a hurdle to the ability of students to access the grade level curriculum in the general education context (with peers).

• Every moment that a student is involved in some type of “segregated service” (academic, related support), she or he is losing valuable time with same-grade peers working at the grade level curriculum.

• Special factors MUST be seriously considered and ruled out before determining that a student has a disability.

• Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions must now be considered the primary and best options for most students who experience academic struggles. Such students were formerly “fast-tracked” to special education. Help is available through SAT teams for students without having to languish/fail for up to two years before getting significant help. Tier 2 interventions are intended for many of those “marginal” students who were formerly placed in SPED.

Changing Role of SAT• The SAT Team is now the primary intervention and support source

for 85% to 95% of students with academic-social problems.

• SAT Case Management can now range from shorter term (9-18 weeks), longer term (18 weeks to one year) or permanent basis.

• Shorter term cases are the most serious wherein the data indicates a clearly need for fairly quick referral (4 to 6 weeks) for special education evaluation.

• Longer term or permanent basis cases may be borderline cases or reflect those students who have cultural, language, attendance and environment factors at play.