Institutionalizing low expectations in schools

An excerpt from The Politics of Education K-12.

by Lonnie Palmer

A major expansion of special education services took place post PL 94-142 in the late 1970’s with the introduction of a new category of disability – learning disabled.

During the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, the definition of learning disabled morphed to include students who were performing academically at lower levels than expected. A general education student entering fourth grade performing at average levels reads at a fourth-grade level (4.0) by the end of fourth grade. A learning-disabled child would leave fourth grade reading at a second-grade level (2.0) or lower.

Once learning disabilities became eligible for special education services several unintended consequences developed.

First, if I am a third-grade teacher with a very poor reader in my classroom who also happens to be a poorly behaved student, I begin to think: “She must be a special education student.”

When the public complains about the dumbing down of the curriculum, this is where it’s mostly being done.

Once the student was tested (usually by a school psychologist) and found to be far enough behind academically to warrant the special education label, they were moved to a separate classroom with the special education teacher. If I was the third-grade teacher who was certain one of my poor reading and poor behaving students (emotional disabilities became a new category also) was a special education student, this solution would make my life a whole lot easier. This solution also protected the job of the special education teacher and the teacher aide and grew the special education turf.

If a student was tested and showed academic performance that fell below grade level but was not weak enough to warrant special education services, the regular classroom teacher still had one arrow in her quiver: a call to the parent of the poor reader/behavioral problem student saying: “Your son is way behind academically. He should be getting special education services in a smaller class with a trained special education teacher and an aide. You should go to a Committee on Special Education meeting and request these services for your child. I can’t give them the extra help she needs for success.”

To read the entire book, The Politics of Education K-12, click here.

Students classified as special education students due to very weak reading or math skills resulting in a “learning disability” label were in general expected to face less challenging reading and math expectations in their classes. Sometimes this came with less rigorous “learning materials.” Many times, it came with pull-out special education reading instruction that was completed with said learning materials many grade levels below the challenge level students would face in regular classrooms and on the state exams.

Sometimes it came and still comes with longer time periods for completing the tests or having an adult read the text and/or the questions aloud to the student. And for those learning-disabled students where the expectations are not watered down, their help primarily came and still comes, as required by extensive regulations, from special education certified teachers for set daily time periods and in special education classrooms with regulation-driven class sizes.

As a newer alternative to this model, special education teachers can be “pushed into” the regular classroom to assist their special education students.

Buy the book!

Many of the special education teachers in both the push-in and pull-out models are overwhelmed with the content expectations for students in math, reading, science and social studies and the individual needs of their students. In general, special education teacher training does not provide the extensive content training in science, social studies, math and language arts regular classroom teachers must complete, especially at the middle and high school levels.

Consequently, special education teachers in many cases provide less-than-adequate academic support for their students to meet all these requirements. Many special and regular education teachers resent the push-in approach, as they feel they’ve lost their own classroom and taken on someone else’s work in addition to their own work.

When the public complains about the dumbing down of the curriculum, this is where it’s mostly being done, in separate special education and remedial education classrooms. In my opinion labeling learning disabled students as special education students and saddling them with special education teachers who were previously trained only to teach less demanding (dumbed down) curriculum, has produced generations of unsuccessful students, students who get to high school and just give up on themselves because of weak academic skills.

The special education juggernaut has slowed some recently with non-special education interventions prompted by a federally mandated, state implemented program called Response to Intervention (RTI).[i] Response to Intervention requires special education be only a last resort, after all other interventions have been tried.

However, it will take generations to turn the tide. Special education has become a powerful lobby with its own turf: Committees on Special Education in every school district, school administrators and special education teachers and aides in every district, regulations and heavily funded departments at the federal and state levels, cottage industries of lawyers and service providers, parent advocacy groups and influential politicians who can see where the power and money serve their interests best.

In my view, the enormous waste of educational resources and student academic potential, resulting from the present special education morass, is one of many anchors dragging down our public education system. And the system we have does little to help the students who truly need support.

The Politics of Education K-12 is available on Amazon.

[i] Jose L. Martin, “Legal Implications of Response to Intervention and Special Education Identification,” RTI Action Network, 2016, https://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/legal-implications-of-response-to-intervention-and-special-education-identification

?