Labeling to Help? Special Education Identification and Academic and Nonacademic Outcomes

Prevention Model Takes Off in Schools: A New Approach for Learning Disabilities

Special Education Eligibility: When Is a Speech-Language Impairment Also a Disability?

abstract: A state's special education funding structure affects both the level of special education services provided and how equitably these services are distributed across districts. Irrespective of the funding system, districts in almost all states use unrestricted funds to pay for special education services not covered by revenue designated for special education. This study focuses on how district wealth and the provision of special education services are related to this use of unrestricted funds. Using a unique panel dataset that includes detailed annual district level financial and enrollment information for 604 local and intermediate school districts in Michigan, our main findings are that: (i) the financial burden associated with using unrestricted funds for special education expenditures is significantly greater for the poorest districts due to their larger fraction of special need students; and (ii) students receiving special education services vary with district wealth and this variation is likely attributable to both compositional differences of special need students and financial incentives that create differences in the special education identification and services. While unable to quantify the compositional and incentive effects, our results clearly document large inequities in special education funding across Michigan school districts.

Is placement in special education during the elementary grades associated with higher school performance? To shed light on this question, we investigated the relationship between participation in special education programs during Grades 1–6 and school achievement among 1,234 low-income children participating in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. About 15% of the study sample received special education services (half in learning disabilities and half in other disabilities), 22% were retained in grade, and 50% changed schools more than once over the elementary grades. Controlling for school achievement prior to placement in special education, as well as for family background school experiences, and school attributes, children receiving special education services had lower reading and math achievement scores than other children, especially during Grades 4–6. Children with learning disabilities benefited less from special education services than did children with other disabilities. Grade retention and school mobility during the primary grades were associated with significantly lower reading and math achievement above and beyond prior achievement and other factors. Continued scrutiny of special education services and retention practices, at least as they currently exist in large cities, may benefit children with learning difficulties.

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic created novel challenges for school systems and students, particularly students with disabilities. In the shift to remote/distance learning, this report explores the degree to which children with disabilities did not receive the special education and related services defined in their individualized education program (IEP).MethodsPatients attending an outpatient tertiary care center for neurodevelopmental disabilities in Maryland were surveyed on the impact of the pandemic on educational services provision.ResultsNearly half (46%) of respondents qualified for special education and related services through an IEP before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among those with IEPs, 48% attested to reduced frequency and/or duration of special education and/or related services during the pandemic. The reduction was greatest in occupational therapy services (47%), followed physical therapy services (46%), and special education services (34%).ConclusionThis survey of children with disabilities observes a substantial reduction in IEP services reported in their completed surveys. To address the observed reduction in IEP services, we sought additional education for clinicians on the rights of students with disabilities in anticipation of students’ re-entry to the classroom. A special education law attorney provided an instructional session on compensatory education and recovery services to prepare clinicians to properly inform parents about their rights and advocate for patients with unmet IEP services during the pandemic.

Response to Intervention (RtI) consists of multi-tiered instructional delivery systems in which educators provide research-based interventions to students that increase in intensity depending on students' instructional response. RtI is currently being implemented in schools across the United States. RtI's shift away from standardized testing offers new opportunities to consider the ways in which African American students are serviced within the general education setting, the assessment methods deemed appropriate when considering African American students for special education under the Specific Learning Disability category, and how multi-tiered intervention can address the overrepresentation of African American students in special education. This article provides an overview of a three-tiered RtI model, explores the promises and challenges of using RtI with African American students, and delineates a research and direct service delivery agenda to facilitate the development of RtI models that consider the educational needs of African American students.Keywords: African American studies, early childhood/elementary, learning and academic achievement, special education and disabilityMethods used to assess African American students, particularly in relation to special education, have generated controversy among educators, parents, and policymakers for decades (Graves & Mitchell, 201 1; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). Such controversy stems, in part, from perceptions that standardized measures of intelligence, which are often used to help determine students' eligibility for special education services, are biased toward African Americans, and the use of these measures contributes to the disproportionate representation (i.e., over or underrepresentation of specific groups in disability categories) of African Americans in special education (Keams, Ford, & Linney, 2005; Larry P. v. Riles, 1979; Pitre, 2009; Powers, Hagans-Murillo, & Restori, 2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) along with No Child Left Behind's (NCLB, 2001) emphasis on accountability through mandated monitoring of academic outcomes for the most vulnerable student populations, including students with disabilities, has brought Response to Intervention (Rtl) to the forefront of policy and practice (Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huddleston, 2012). Rtl models consist of multi-tiered instructional delivery systems in which educators provide, and assess frequently the impact of, research-based interventions to students that increase in intensity depending on students' instructional response. IDEIA 2004 encourages states and local educational agencies to use processes, similar to Rtl, that provide instructionally relevant assessment data to identify a specific learning disability (SLD). Therefore, Rtl can serve as an alternative to the traditional assessment method (i.e., administration of standardized intelligence and achievement tests) used to identify students for special education under the category of SLD (Hartlep & Ellis, 2012; IDEIA, 2004). Although Rtl is now one option for assessing African American students for SLD, in order to implement Rtl in a culturally responsive manner, educators, parents, policymakers, and researchers must carefully and seriously consider both the benefits and challenges of Rtl for African American students.In this article, the authors explore the promises and perils of using a three-tiered Rtl model with African American students. The discussion is framed around SLD assessment and classification decision-making because IDEIA 2004 endorses Rtl for SLD identification only, and almost half of African American students identified for special education are serviced under the SLD category (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2011). To provide context as well as a rationale for Rtl, a brief discussion is presented regarding intelligence testing in relation to African American students and the special education identification and placement process. …

Everyday millions of students in the United States receive special education services. Special education is an institution shaped by societal norms. Inherent in these norms are implicit assumptions regarding disability and the nature of special education services. The two dominant implicit assumptions evident in the American educational system are the view that disability is deviant and should be eradicated and the assumption that all special services should be delivered in a separate environment. A review of literature was conducted to reveal trends in special education. In particular, inclusive practices, Response to Intervention (RTI), and student achievement were examined. This paper argues that while federal policy was created in an effort to promote access to general education, the practices of our educational institutions perpetuate isolation. New assumptions must be created to promote access and equality for students with learning disabilities. True inclusion, where students with learning disabilities are fully included in the general education classroom, can help to reinforce new assumptions.

The purpose of this study was to examine the satisfaction and understanding of parents of young children with disabilities in North Texas in regard to the special education services they receive through their local education authority. A mixed non-experimental research design utilizing the survey method was used to obtain the data collected from a sample of 230 parents with children with disabilities from preschool to elementary ages. Factorial analysis techniques were first used to assess the validity of the 14 quantitative items by splitting the sample into 2 equivalent groups: the development group and the validation group. Exploratory factor analysis extracted 2 factors after eliminating 4 items: satisfaction and understanding. This 2-factor structure was confirmed in the validation group. The final 10-item survey demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity. Overall, parents were very satisfied with the special education services and reported a good understanding of those services. Two x two (number of children x years of services) ANOVAs were used to examine the differences on parental satisfaction and understanding. No statistically significant differences were found except that parents with 2 or 3 children were more satisfied than the counterparts with only 1 child in the special education program. This difference was practically meaningful. Data provided by 4 open-ended questions revealed that parent training and communication were the most popular strategies mentioned as methods to increase parental understanding of the special education process. The best sources of receiving special education information were ARD committees and teachers/diagnosticians. Excessive and wordy paperwork was the least helpful source of information regarding receiving special education. Postal-mail and the ARD meetings with diagnosticians were the best methods of acquiring special education information. Findings from this study, especially on the open-ended questions, suggested the special education program and services can be improved to better serve the parents and their children.

Transition in the 1990s: A Reply to Knowlton and Clark The April issue of Exceptional Children (1987, Vol. 53, No. 6) addressed transition from school to adult life, which marks an important point in the history of special education. The issues raised by contributing authors signaled the shift in professional focus from accessibility concerns to the examination of outcomes associated with special education services. In little more than a decade, special educators have become advocates not only for the right of students with handicaps to educational services, but also for their right to lead productive and dignified lives as a result of attending our nation's public schools. The special issue of Exceptional Children concluded with a discussion of the future of transition efforts. Knowlton and Clark (1987) raised several important issues that practitioners will undoubtedly confront in the next decade and beyond. These issues include how the increase in national attention on academic excellence will affect programs serving secondary students with handicaps and the importance of preparing secondary special educators to deal effectively with the transition of these students. Knowlton and Clark pointed out that implementation of effective transition programs will require changing much more than recognition of the problem. We agree with Knowlton and Clark that system-wide change will be required, but we are concerned about two of their recommendations concerning the future of transition efforts. Specifically, we believe that ignoring an excellent body of literature because subjects were labeled is unwarranted. Moreover, refocusing the goals of transition programs to include independent living and social outcomes clashes with what we believe are important trends in special education. LABELING IN THE LITERATURE Knowlton and Clark suggested that severely handicapped persons have been overrepresented in the transition literature--and that the focus on these persons may alienate many potential consumers of transition services. Knowlton and Clark suggested that professionals may find that the existing literature is not relevant to their efforts to serve persons with or moderate handicaps. Nevertheless, pointing out the irony in this situation, the authors indicated that many of the severely handicapped subjects referred to in the literature could very well drift into a more moderately handicapped category with more careful assessment of their disability. We agree with Knowlton and Clark that the possible exclusion of some professionals and the clients they serve from the progress made in the field of transition would be unfortunate and unproductive. We do not believe, however, that changing the subject descriptors used by researchers will necessarily make the transition literature more palatable. Increasingly, special education is examining the outcomes of its efforts, including the provision of secondary special education and transitional services. We believe that the focus on outcomes should remain the basis for evaluating the relevance of special education and transitional services. Consumers must address the effectiveness of the procedures reported in research studies and examine the utility of the recommendations made by investigators. The results of transitional services research based on sound experimental designs are likely to be replicated at all levels. All professionals should be encouraged to judge research results on their technical merit rather than on the labels chosen by the investigators to describe their subjects. In this way, the large body of excellent work already existing on transition can be used for the benefit of all. It is our contention that, since its inception, transition has been a program targeted to all persons with handicaps who need services (Will, 1984). Knowlton and Clark's lament about the focus on persons with severe as opposed to mild handicaps seems out of place. …

Currently, over 4.3 million children are receiving special services within the nation's schools because of physical, developmental, and educational disabilities. It is estimated that twice this number would benefit from special education services. Public Law 94–142, the Education for the Handicapped Act, offered the first real opportunity for many children with disabilities to receive special health and educational services. Public schools have become a primary setting for provision of services to these children, however, many states have encountered difficulty in procuring funding. One federally mandated source of revenue is the Medicaid program. In the fall of 1991, all state Medicaid and special education programs were asked to provide information concerning current or planned use of Medicaid funds for special education services. Responses were received from 36 states. Only 19 states reported using Medicaid funding in any capacity, and of these, only four required schools to bill Medicaid for services rendered. The majority of these programs are in the pilot stages of development. Special education services covered by Medicaid vary widely, as do reimbursement mechanisms. All 19 states allow Medicaid coverage for speech, physical, and occupational therapy. Only about half of those states provide allowances for diagnostic evaluation and assessment, while coverage for psychological services is provided by three-fourths of those states, and EPSDT screens by half of the states. Only two programs had been evaluated formally at the state and/or federal level. Medicaid remains a largely untapped source of revenue that could be used to help fund services for disabled children.

Dynamic assessment refers to assessment that combines elements of instruction for the purpose of learning something about an individual that cannot be learned as easily or at all from conventional assessment. The origins of dynamic assessment can be traced to Thorndike (1924), Rey (1934), and Vygotsky (1962), who shared three basic assumptions (Grigorenko, 2009). The first assumption is that conventional assessment does not work for children who have diverse educational and cultural experiences. The second assumption is that we should be interested more in where children can be tomorrow if given adequate education or intervention, rather than in where children are now given their previous educational history. The third and final assumption is that the reason for assessment lies in intervention, and consequently, that the results of assessment should have direct implications for selecting or modifying interventions. Obvious parallels exist between fundamental assumptions of dynamic assessment and those of recent response-to-intervention (RTI) models (see Grigorenko, 2009, for a comprehensive and insightful recent comparison between dynamic assessment and response to intervention). RTI models can be used as the basis of service delivery and also as a source of assessment information (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Arguments in support of using RTI models as a source of assessment information mirror the three key assumptions of dynamic assessment. In the context of eligibility determination for special education services, the traditional aptitude-achievement assessment model has been criticized as a “wait to fail” model because most children with learning disabilities are not identified and provided special education services until the end of first grade or later. However, it is unlikely that adopting an RTI model for identification will speed up the process, and might even delay it. Even proponents of a prominent role of RTI models in identification of children with learning disabilities do not suggest that assessing response to intervention is sufficient for identification (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). Rather, consistent with the consensus of the Learning Disabilities Summit (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), identification requires a comprehensive individual examination in addition to review of a child’s response to intervention (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). If we assume that a comprehensive individual exam will not be scheduled until a child has not responded to three tiers of instruction/intervention, each each lasting 12 weeks, formal identification is unlikely to be speeded up relative to the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy model. This is not an argument for the traditional aptitude-achievement discrepancy model, which has been criticized justifiably on other grounds, and it should be pointed out that an advantage of an RTI model is that children receive intervention prior to formal identification. The point is merely that contact with special education personnel and services is unlikely to happen sooner under an RTI model. Might dynamic assessment be a faster way to obtain information that is provided by assessing response to intervention and is not available from conventional assessment? This question motivated the contributions to this volume of the Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Introduction: American research suggests that stressors associated with growing up in a military family, including geographic mobility, may affect the academic performance and school participation of military-connected children. Students requiring special education may be particularly vulnerable to impacts. Because this issue has not been explored in a Canadian context, the objective of this study was to explore the experience of geographic mobility for Canadian military families and their children’s access to special education services. Methods: Informed by interpretive phenomenological analysis, nine female parents of children with special education needs growing up in Canadian military families were interviewed. Results: Three superordinate themes emerged: Transitioning to new special education systems and services takes an emotional toll on families; active and persistent advocacy and communication strategies to access services are critical; and families struggle to balance securing special education services with career implications. Discussion: Given the common experience of high mobility among military families, future studies should explore different perspectives of the transition experience and barriers to access, including those of educators, school administrators, and active Canadian Armed Forces members.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires public school districts to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities enrolled in private schools. When the private school is a parochial school this issue may be complicated because of the First Amendment's separation of church and state doctrine. Until recently, providing most on-site special education services was prohibited. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision lifted the ban, and the 1997 amendments to IDEA have helped to clarify a school district's obligation for providing services to parochial school students. In this article the authors summarize and analyze the major court decisions concerned with the provision of special education and related services to parochial school students and discuss their implications for providing on-site special education services at parochial schools. In particular, two questions are addressed: Must private school students with disabilities be provided with the same level of services as their public school peers? Are school districts required to provide parochial school students with on-site special education services?

The number of children estimated to suffer mental health disorders, and therefore, creating the need for special education services for children with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), is between 5% and 25% of children under the age of 18 (Brauner & Stephens, 2006). Admittedly, not all children with EBD have been identified and served, but many children have been identified as eligible for special education services as part of IDEIA regulation. Children identified with EBD are eligible for a variety of special education services. These services may be applied to interventions (or treatments, in mental health terminology) delivered in a regular classroom (e.g., supplementary aids and services, positive behavior intervention plans), while other services may require selfcontained or pullout programming for all or part of the school day. Regardless of the method, the goal of special education is to improve the academic, behavioral, and emotional outcomes for children identified with EBD.Although the goal of special education is improved child outcomes, we agree with the conclusion of Kauffman and Badar (2013) that parents and children may be influenced by social stigma associated with the classification, which may cause families to neglect or even decline special education services. In an attempt to increase special education participation by lessening the stigma associated with EBD identification, Kauffman and Badar offer four suggestions aimed at changing the public perception of special education services including: (a) discussing with stakeholders (e.g., parents, children) differences in behavior resulting from treatment in clear, understandable terms; (b) recognizing the reality of such differences due to treatment and its impact on students' learning; (c) emphasizing to stakeholders the benefits of special education; and (d) working to implement specialized instructional interventions (or treatments) as intended and planned.We support these recommendations as eminently practical and because they are based on sound judgment and experience. These suggestions may help to reduce some stigma in individual cases. Our concern is that they address some of the indicators of stigma but not the underlying causes. They are, therefore, not likely to address the issue of stigma and its impact on children, families, and the discipline of special education more broadly. Thus, stigma is likely to remain because the causes have not been adequately addressed. And, like a disease, the symptoms, or stigma is likely to worsen; rendering the four recommendations of Kauffman and Badar increasingly less effective with time.The stigma problem associated with EBD is daunting. Accordingly, we suggest that the boldness required to address it should be commensurate with the ubiquity of concerns about special education reflected in the popular and professional media. Returning to the disease metaphor, invasive and uncomfortable treatments are now required to salvage the patient, which in this case is the special education enterprise for EBD.At the time of this writing (January 8, 2014) for example, a cover letter was released by the United States Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan, for a report calling on schools to reconsider and refrain from the widespread application of harsh disciplinary practices in schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). It included the following quote:Although students who receive special education services represent 12 percent of students in the country, they make up 19 percent of students suspended in school, 20 percent of students receiving out-of-school suspension once, 25 percent of students receiving multiple out-of-school suspensions, 19 percent of students expelled, 23 percent of students referred to law enforcement, and 23 percent of students receiving a school-related arrest, (p. i)The scientific literature on EBD-including works published by well-regarded special education researchers in this journal-is also replete with nonsupportive conclusions about special education participation. …

Previous research has shown that low birthweight is a predictor of several adverse educational outcomes, including special educational placement, by middle school age. Most low-birthweight follow-up studies that have extended to school age have focused on very small infants-- < 1500 or < 1000 g; less is known of the school age outcomes for infants with only moderately low birthweight (1500-2000 g). This study examines the prevalence of special educational placement and the relationship of such placement to grade retention, verbal and performance scores on tests of general intelligence, reading and maths achievement scores and classroom hyperactivity among low-birthweight children. In a regional birth cohort of 1105 infants born between 1984 and 1987 and weighing 500-2000 g, 868 children were available for follow-up at age nine. Information on special education placement as well as grade retention, intelligence, academic achievement and classroom behaviour was available on 645 (74% completion rate). Nearly a third of the cohort was classified as needing special education. Special education placement followed a birthweight gradient, occurring among 29.3% of children with birthweights 1500-2000 g, among 32.5% in children 1000-1500 g and 49.4% in children < 1000 g. Among children in special education, a similar birthweight gradient was found for maths achievement and hyperactivity, but not for reading achievement or IQ scores. Among children not in special education, only maths achievement showed such a decline with birthweight. A substantial proportion of low-birthweight children, including those of moderate low birthweight, receive special education services, although the need is greatest among those with the lowest birthweights. Maths achievement declined with birthweight regardless of educational placement. The medical and social risk factors that accompany low birthweight and may account for these findings, require further study.