Special Education Conflict: A Symptom of Poor Outcomes for Students

Vol. 31 No. 2

By Sara A. Gelser 

Sara A. Gelser serves in the Oregon House of Representatives, where she is Chair of the House Education Committee, and is a member of the National Council on Disability. She previously worked as the Children with Disabilities and Family Support Coordinator for the Oregon Department of Human Services.

Conflict between schools and parents over the provision of the education of students with disabilities is not uncommon. Unfortunately, the investigation of conflict and imposed penalties disproportionately focus on procedural matters and do little to address the underlying concerns of students and parents. More importantly, despite a wealth of procedural safeguards and strong laws protecting students’ rights to a free and appropriate education, too many students with disabilities are leaving school unprepared for postsecondary life. Most leave without a standard diploma. The nation’s compliance and monitoring system should be shifted to better address student outcomes.

The Original Special Education Law

Students with disabilities were regularly excluded from school before the passage in 1975 of PL 94-142 (initially called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). The law was the culmination of years of diligent, grassroots advocacy by families. Parents and their allies had argued that students with disabilities should be allowed the same access to the public school house as their nondisabled siblings and neighbors. The widespread exclusion of students with disabilities not only denied these children access to education, but it also severely limited opportunities for socialization, community inclusion, leisure, and the development of work skills. For many families, this lack of structured options for school-aged children increased the likelihood of institutional placement for children as the institution was often the only place children with disabilities could access any kind of services or educational programming. It also fostered the belief that children with disabilities could not learn.

Because of these dynamics, PL 94-142 was focused on very basic procedural issues that reflected the primary goal of allowing children admission into public schools. In essence, the law was an assertion that children with disabilities are entitled to the same public accommodations as nondisabled children. The law focused on the role of parents, the development of individualized education program (IEP) teams, and the provision of specialized services. In addition, the law was developed based on the assumption that, although children with disabilities must be allowed in the school door, they were still fundamentally different from other students. As a consequence, the law resulted in the development of special classrooms, special teaching licenses, and even special schools that continued to separate students with disabilities from their nondisabled peers. This is readily apparent in the adoption of the term “special education,” which implies that students with disabilities will receive teaching and instruction that is fundamentally different from that of their peers.

The Need for Reform

PL 94-142 was desperately needed to throw the doors of public schools open to all kids. However, as more children walked or rolled through those doors, the expectations of parents began to change. No longer needing to worry about whether their children would be denied entry to a classroom, parents began dreaming about educational goals for their students. They wanted to see kids find success in reading, writing, and math and to participate in the life and culture of the school. As a result, when the law was reauthorized in the 1990s, it was amended to include for the first time the requirement that general educators participate in the IEP process and that each IEP consider grade-appropriate curriculum for students. However, even then the focus was simply on whether the general education teacher attended the IEP meeting—not whether the student was making progress in the general curriculum.

Under current law, parents can seek legal remedy on behalf of their students when IEP meetings are not scheduled on time. Remedies can also be sought if paperwork is not completed properly, if too few service hours are provided, if required individuals do not participate in a meeting, or if proper notice is not given to parents about the schedule for an IEP meeting. Although these procedural safeguards are important, they do little to focus compliance and improvement efforts on actual student outcomes. The results of this can be seen in the dismal outcomes for students with disabilities in public schools, and it increases the conflict between parents and schools. This is because parents—frustrated with poor outcomes for their kids—are forced into the position of filing complaints about paperwork and timelines. Such complaints, in the face of multiple challenges in public schools, can appear to be trivial when the real conflict is rooted in fears about the future of students who are not gaining needed academic skills.

According to 2008 data, only ten states reported a graduation rate of greater than 50 percent for students with disabilities. In fact, more than half the states award diplomas to fewer than 40 percent of their students in special education (National Council on Disability, “2013 National Disability Policy: A Progress Report—Strength in Our Differences”). Students who leave high school without a diploma face tremendous hurdles to employment and are more likely than their classmates to live in poverty. According to U.S. Department of Education data (“The Condition of Education 2013,” NCES 2012-037), the median income of a 25- to 34-year-old without a high school diploma is 40 percent less than the median income of all same-aged individuals. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its “2011 Current Population Survey,” reports that across all ages, the median annual earnings are $10,000 per year less for an American without a high school diploma ($23,452) than for an American with a high school diploma ($33,176). In addition, Americans without high school diplomas have the highest unemployment rate, at 14.1 percent.

This problem became even more pronounced in 2012 with the passage of federal legislation to deny federal financial aid for all postsecondary programs to students who don’t have a regular diploma. In the past, students without a standard high school diploma could take an “Ability to Benefit Test” or receive other waivers to access federal grants and loans to finance higher education, including career certificate programs in areas such as welding, childcare, auto repair, and the culinary arts. Under the new law, a student without a high school diploma will not be able to access federal aid to finance these programs, even if they are otherwise qualified to excel in these fields. As a result, the majority of students with disabilities in the United States will not be able to access college, university, trade, or career education unless they can afford to self-finance these endeavors.

Given the lifelong consequences of poor educational outcomes, it is little wonder that parents and students express frustration with their school systems. Unfortunately, even skilled advocates find it difficult to drive changes in the education system because there is no mechanism within the current compliance system to drive improvements to student learning. In addition, the persistently poor performance of special education–identified students reinforces outdated biases that suggest these students are incapable of learning.

Diploma Denied: The Impact of High-Stakes Testing

Students with disabilities face new hurdles in their efforts to earn high school diplomas owing to more states requiring passage of high-stakes standardized tests in order to graduate. Though not required by the federal government, many states now require that students demonstrate their skills through standardized tests and work samples prior to graduation, in addition to meeting grade, attendance, and credit requirements for their classes. If students are unable to perform on these tests, they may be denied high school diplomas in spite of an exemplary student record.

“Rose” is an Oregon high school senior facing this problem. Rose’s learning disabilities were apparent early in her life. Her parents obtained outside evaluations to supplement tests by the school, resulting in a diagnosis of a variety of learning and cognitive disabilities in early elementary school. Specialists warned that school would always be a challenge for Rose. Although that prediction came true, Rose’s hard work ethic and her parents’ consistent advocacy carried her through her school years.

As a high school student, Rose refused the opportunity to take modified courses. She preferred to work with tutors, take summer classes, spend many hours studying, and access necessary accommodations, such as books on tape and speech to text technology, to meet the same standards as her peers in all her academic classes. This was not without sacrifice on Rose’s part, as she reports that assignments take her two to three times longer to complete than her classmates.

As a senior, Rose’s hard work appears to have paid off. She has a 3.2 GPA, has passed all the courses necessary for an Oregon diploma, has earned three varsity letters, and is an active member of her school’s student leadership program. She was recently accepted to a four-year university, and more letters of acceptance are expected to arrive soon.

Unfortunately for Rose, the school district and the Oregon Department of Education have determined that she cannot use the same accommodations she used all through high school to demonstrate proficiency either on the state’s standardized test or on the alternative work samples. Ironically, her college acceptance letters indicate that she will be allowed to use these accommodations while in college to earn credits. Without the accommodations, Rose has not been able to meet the benchmark on the tests or work samples.

As a result, despite her hard work, high GPA, and letter of acceptance from a four-year institution, Rose will not receive an Oregon high school diploma. For this talented young woman, it isn’t just about the piece of paper. She will not be allowed to walk with her graduating class of 2014, and her college dreams are jeopardized. This is because of the new federal law that denies federal financial aid to students who do not have a standard high school diploma.

Rose isn’t alone. She’s one of countless students mired in the controversies and complexities of high-stakes standardized testing. Policy makers need to examine situations like Rose’s to determine what public good is served by denying these students high school diplomas, access to postsecondary education, and opportunities for a prosperous future. Legislators, state boards of education, and local school boards all need to reexamine the purpose of standardized tests, better scrutinize the menu of accommodations, and develop smarter pathways to graduation for students who have demonstrated the ability to overcome enormous learning obstacles.

Until students such as Rose have meaningful and fair access to high school diplomas, the promise of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act cannot be realized.

Opportunities for Improvement

The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act offers a unique opportunity to hone in on developing strategies to help students with disabilities succeed in mastering curriculum and grade-level standards. New accountability systems that focus on student growth, attainment of literacy, and access to research-based teaching in quality learning environments are essential to helping more students with disabilities earn high school diplomas and strive for a more prosperous future. Until that time, conflicts between parents and school districts will lead to dissatisfying results. Neither schools nor students are served by corrective action plans that do little to boost student learning and that pull resources out of professional development and new opportunities for students.