No Child Left Behind: The Death of Special Education?

Abstract

NCLB's requirements for students with are based on faulty assumptions about the power of special education to overcome those disabilities. Mr. Wasta fears that the law's unrealistic expectations for these students and their teachers give schools incentives to eliminate their special education programs altogether. ********** ADAM AND Jose were two bright, energetic boys in Ms. Walls' third-grade class at Spring Lane Elementary School. In spite of a good preschool experience, all-day kindergarten, placement in the Reading Recovery Program in first grade, and support from the school's literacy specialist in second grade, both boys' reading was weak, characterized by low levels of fluency and poor comprehension. Ms. Walls began to suspect that the boys might have a disability. But before she referred either boy for evaluation, she brought them both to the attention of the Early Intervention Team. For several months Ms. Walls collaborated with other members of the team, trying a variety of interventions and instructional approaches. Finally, after making very little progress, both boys were referred for an evaluation to determine if they were eligible for special education. The evaluations revealed that both boys qualified for special education because of a disability. The evaluations indicated that the boys had deficits in auditory memory and short-term storage and retrieval, in spite of above-average intelligence. An IEP (individualized educational plan) was drafted for each boy with the assistance of Mr. Niles, an experienced special education teacher. Mr. Niles worked with both boys for the next year, providing a combination of direct instruction--both in and outside of the classroom--and advocacy services, including suggested accommodations and modifications. At the annual review meetings in the spring of grade 4, Jose had made significant progress and was now scoring in the proficient range. Unfortunately, Adam continued to struggle, making only slow progress. In view of Jose's progress, his service was reduced to consultation, just to be sure that he would continue his progress without direct intervention. In the spring of grade 5, Jose was dismissed from special education amid smiles and congratulations. The same was not true for Adam. He was to continue in special education as he entered sixth grade. Though Mr. Niles accepted the gratitude of Jose's parents graciously, he had to admit privately that he really didn't know why Jose suddenly got and wasn't sure it had much to do with what he had done. He did admit to a passing regret that Jose was being discharged from special education, because his scores would be helpful to the school's special education cell under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Anyone familiar with special education will recognize this vignette as fairly common. My retelling it also serves to point out the following faulty and misguided thinking and assumptions embodied in NCLB's approach to special education. 1. NCLB requires that all disabled students eventually demonstrate proficient academic performance. This expectation assumes that the state of the art in special education is such that special educators know how to make students who are severely disabled into students who are proficient. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Despite 40 years of good-faith efforts by dedicated teachers and researchers, learning disabilities is an area that is still not fully understood, and consistently effective methods for ameliorating such have not been found. 2. If a special education student achieves proficiency, he is no longer classified as disabled. Therefore, how could special education students as a group ever be proficient when the successful ones are removed from the group? Perhaps, as was actually suggested by some in Washington, even when these students succeed, they should continue to be identified as disabled. …