Spec Ed 781Advanced Studies in Special

Education

Summer 2005Dr. Chiang

Major Components of the CourseUnderstanding Current Special Education Issues

Awareness of critical issues & implicationsResearch one selected topic to share with the rest of class by Powerpoint presentation

Familiarity with Educational StatisticsBasic descriptive & inferential statisticsUsing SPSS to analyze data

Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, May 2001(http://www.edexcellence.net)

A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, July, 2002

The Death of Special Education, January 2001Learning Disabilities: Severity, Inclusion, and

Complexity, October 2000Redefining LD as Inadequate Response to

Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems, 2003Responsiveness to General Education

Instruction as the First Gate to LD Identification, 2003

Required Reading

Chapter 1Special education complicating education reform school choice standards & accountability

A bright-line test to determine LREthe importance of 1994 Title 1 reauthorizationcurrent federal special education funding formula

December 1 unduplicated state headcounts (need-based funding)Limited census-based funding

Chapter 1What is the current federal share of special education spending? Disabled children cost about twice as much to educate as the non-disabled. Are you aware of this? How can we defend this cost? How can special education be made more cost effective?  Comment on LD as a “sociological sponge to wipe up the spills of general education.”  How can you defend against the criticism that special education complicates education reform? What flaws, if any, are there with the two-part test in determining what an “appropriate” education is?

Chapter 2

Three unintended negative consequences of IDEA

Extraordinary growth of special ed enrollment due to funding incentiveExpanding cost of special ed at the expense of regular edApplication of accommodation strategies resulting in a lifetime of entitlement

Chapter 2--continued

Five reasons for the out-of-control growth in special ed :

1. pressure from advocacy groups2. continued growth of LD3. the incentive to over-identify4. recent education reform & high-stake tests5. much less stigma attached to special ed

Accommodation & “differential advantages”

Chapter 2--continuedThree special ed reform recommendations:

1. Disentangle special ed sub-populations2. Reform special ed funding3. Empower students to overcome their disabilities

Three restructured special ed categories:1. children w/ significant sensory, cognitive, &

physical disabilities2. children w/ neurological dysfunction3. children w/ behavioral problems

Criticism of census-based funding & possible solutions

Chapter 2In what ways have the 1991 federal policy clarification of ADD/ADHD and 1999 codification of OHI changed the special education landscape?  Why have there been not more students exiting from special education programs upon re-evaluation? (Less than 12% currently, most of whom from Speech Language Impairment)  Has special education over emphasized due process while overlooking student outcomes? If so, how can this problem be appropriately addressed? Should school disciplinary rules be differentially applied to special education students or not? Defend your answer as persuasively as you can.  

Chapter 2  

Are we indeed systematically or inadvertently promoting a lifetime entitlement to special accommodations for students with mild impairments of LD, OHI, EBD? Why and why not? 

Develop your arguments in support of or opposing the three-category (instead of the current 13-category) classification system in special education. With this proposed new system, what role changes, if any, can we expect of the general education teachers?

Chapter 4 Three basic hotly contested special ed policy issues:

testing accommodations discipline and a double standard scarcity and resource allocation

“value dilemmas” (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1994) -- “the tension between working toward eradicating or reducing disabilities while at the same time working toward helping the public to attach positive value to those who have a disability”

Chapter 4-continued “It is plainly impossible to reward what we ultimately decide what is meritorious without implicitly penalizing those who lack the skills and virtues we value.” (p.79)Impacts of placement decisions (EBD, OHI for ADD, LD), manifestation determination and different discipline policies: “forces districts to decide that a person is or is not a member of a protected class and then attaches certain strong privileges… to the class status.” (p.81)

Chapter 4Kelman argued that current special education policy issues have little to do with discrimination. Specifically, he cited three “hotly contested policy issues” -- accommodation, discipline, and resource allocation -- to argue his case. Counter-argue Kelman’s case by taking up these three issues one at a time.

Accommodation counterargument: Discipline counterargument: Resource allocation counterargument

To what extent are students with disabilities (especially marginal disabilities such as SLD and EBD) responding to interventions in your district/school/class? In general, are their responses satisfactory? If yes, to whom? If not, why not?

Chapter 7Implications of inclusion

“watering down the curriculum”use of paraprofessionalsparental expectation & conflicts

“access to” and “progress in” general ed curriculum, what does it mean?growth of special ed=school failure?Districts reimbursed from federal Medicaid funds (since 1988) for certain special ed expenses (PT, health aide) for qualified children. Nationally, such reimbursement has increased dramatically.

Chapters 7 & 8  

One approach to control the growth of special education is to use it as a last resort after many options are tried. Discuss the feasibility as well as the potential problems of such an approach.Within an inclusive setting, how can instruction for students with mild disabilities be delivered without watering down the curriculum?1997 Reauthorized IDEA requires special education students to have “meaningful access to the general education curriculum.” What is your interpretation of this requirement?

Chapter 8

Implications of extending the category of SDD to the federal maximum age of 9decentralizing special ed to state, district, or school level

lawsuits, IDEA complaints, due process hearings, and mediations

Laurence Lieberman articlesStudents with LD are not the best candidates for inclusion, why?

continuum of severity vs. complexityelementary vs. secondary school

What should be special ed’s “starting point”, the individual student or the general ed environment (curriculum, standard, & assessment)?disability vs. handicapaccommodation (getting around disability) vs. remediation (going right at disability)

LiebermanDo you agree with his claim that inclusion for students of learning disabilities “may be a simple (and risky) way of dealing with a very complicated problem”? Explain your position.He asserted that “a disabled child was not disabled because he was failing in school; he was failing in school because he was disabled.” Interpret his assertion and share your own thoughts on this statement. Has the “I in IDEA and the I in IEP” indeed become “virtually nonexistent”? Support your observations with evidences.Explain Lieberman’s view on prevention of special education (handicap vs. disability).

Response-to-instruction modelFour required components

On-going progress monitoring assessment proceduresAdequate info about effective instructionGeneral education commitment to supplemental programs for at-risk studentsA means for screening & tracking the progress of a large number of students

Two approaches to eliminate environmental variables as a viable explanation for academic failure

Problem-solving by manipulating instruction via adaptations to general educationIntensive prevention trials and indexing student responsiveness

The dual discrepancy of level & slope (growth or progress) and treatment validity

Chapter 12

Facts about LDEarly intervention and prevention can reduce up to 70% of children with reading problems in special ed or compensatory programs. The largest increase among LD is between age 12 and 17 (upper elementary to middle school).

Chapter 12-continuedRethinking LD:

Develop new definition for LD/reading, LD/language arts, LD/reading comprehension, LD/math etc.Environment, including instruction, can impact development of neural systems.The IQ-Achievement discrepancy makes early identification difficult and results in a “wait-to-fail” model.The current negative definition (in terms of the exclusion clause) has many drawbacks.

Chapter 12-continuedRethinking LD:

“LD has served as a sociological sponge that attempts to wipe up general education’s spills and cleans its ills.”Target resources at early, intensive, evidence-based interventions rather than expensive eligibility determination practice.Many children identified as LD are actually “teaching disabled.” Improve the capacity of teachers and schools to implement sound early interventions, not change criteria.Expand the use of SDD to age 9.

Chapter 12

 The authors claimed that the IQ-achievement discrepancy, when employed as the primary criterion for LD eligibility decision making, may well harm more children than it helps. What are the problems with the IQ-achievement discrepancy?The authors made an evidence-based argument for early identification, prevention, and early intervention. What specific evidences did they cite?

Conclusions8 policy failures identified for special

education:1. Preventable & remediable conditions grow

into intractable problems.2. It keeps expanding such its goals become

unattainable, its operation impossibly complex & costly, and its purpose clouded.

3. Its one-size-fits-all approach has created a legal & policy straightjacket.

4. The IDEA creates perverse incentives for educators and schools.

Conclusions-continued

5. Parents have perverse incentives, too.6. As the largest unfunded federal mandate in K-12

education, it distorts the priority & fractures the programmatic coherence of schools and school systems.

7. Different rules for disabled children foster a “separate but unequal” education system.

8. It collides with standards-based reform, exempting many students (and indirectly educators/schools) from meeting state or district academic standards.

Conclusions-continuedSix Principles for Special Ed Reform:1. Make the IDEA standards- and performance-

based, wherever possible.2. Streamline number of categories into a few

very broad groupings.3. Focus on prevention & early intervention,

wherever possible.4. Encourage flexibility, innovation, & choices.5. Provide adequate funding to ensure program

success.6. End double standards, wherever possible.

Chapter 3

Three types of accountability models:1. compliance (bureaucracy, regulatory),

emphasizing process & documentation2. competition (market), emphasizing

outcomes or results, and consumer choice3. community (clan) emphasizing shared

norms and values (e.g. Catholic schools)

In special ed, the accountability system tend to combine elements of more than one model. How so?

Chapter 3--continued Three factors contributing to the compliance model is special ed programs:

1. sympathy2. organizational culture3. fear of litigation

The OSEP’s monitoring system leaves the fox to guard the henhouse. How so?To what extent does IDEA ‘97 address effectiveness & accountability?

Chapter 5Special ed incidence rate and

povertyrace (percentages of minority students)per pupil expenditure

Urban districts have lower % of special ed students because

they lack resources(??)they are less competent in identifyingminority parents’ reluctance to placesocial integration (?)

Chapter 9

Increase in special ed preschool (3-5) enrollment Major causes of rising special ed costs:

changes in medical practicedeinstitutionalization & privatizationincreases in children in poverty & families experiencing social and economic stress

Chapter 10

Possible amendments to IDEA (due process):

Limiting attorneys’ feesEstablishing an IDEA statue of limitationsTrain judges as hearing officersLimiting the duration and scope of the process

Chapter14Three principles guiding redesign of special ed policy:

1. an obsession with results2. have access to a big toolbox3. residual rules that provide a safety net

To substitute for compliance model, create a system of performance incentive for

effective interventioneffective remediationeffective prevention

Chapter 14-continued

What is “gaming the numbers?” “information-based approach?” “one-size-fits-all” compliance system?

Which procedures are dispensable (not included as residual requirements)?

each student has an IEP specific components of IEP placement in LRE

Chapter 14-continued

Which procedures are suggested to be residual base of essential compliance obligations?

identify and assess establish annual goals & report the results involve and inform parents monitor compliance