Perhaps as you read this, Congress will have tweaked or overhauled the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Depending on how the votes go, we may see an increase in funding for special education; a cap on the percentage of students eligible for special services; a longer interval period between Individualized Education Programs (an extension from one year to three years was proposed in the House version); vouchers for students not progressing at public schools that would allow them to transfer to private schools (defeated in the House); or curbs on litigation rights for the families of students with disabilities (House version only). Or some combination of the above.
A lot has changed in the 28 years since Congress first guaranteed students with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education. Back then, 80 percent of students with disabilities were placed in institutions or separate facilities for what often amounted to a limited education (Schiller & O'Reilly, 2003). Today, about 6.6 million students identified as having disabilities—approximately 12 percent of the school population—are receiving an array of regular and special services. If the rate of identification continues to expand at the present rate, an estimated 14–16 percent may qualify for special education by the end of the decade (Goldstein, 2003).
The debates about special education today raise some of the same questions that were raised 28 years ago—questions about how much we should fund special education, whether we are identifying too many or too few students for special services, and whether students with learning disabilities should have the same curriculum and assessments as other students. For example, the debate rages on about whether the federal subsidy will ever be 40 percent of the cost to educate students with disabilities, the goal set in the 1970s. The federal government at present allocates about 15 percent of the total cost.
But if you look at the notions that people used to have about special education but rarely voice today, you may find reason for optimism. Today, almost everyone agrees that children with disabilities have the right to be educated in the public schools. And because we have learned more about the many ways in which human brains work, being eligible for special services has lost some of its stigma. We know more about how to identify and deal with specific dysfunctions—from dyslexia to attention deficit disorder. And we have also learned that each of us has a brain as unique as our fingerprint. We are all able and disabled when it comes to learning.
In the contentious debate over this legislation, though, the interests of students in general education are still often pitted against those in special education. In the future, as we learn more about identification and instruction for different ways of learning, even more students will be eligible for special services and informed parents will continue to demand appropriate education for their children. More than likely, the cost of technological, medical, and human interventions will continue to increase.
This issue of Educational Leadership approaches the topics of special needs from the perspective of early, accurate identification and appropriate intervention in the most inclusive classroom. By doing so, we are not overlooking the need for special education that is separate from general education. Indeed, research shows that some students with disabilities and special needs do better with intensive instruction outside the typical setting. Teachers with special education training will be needed more than ever.
Whereas some general classrooms cripple students, Carol Ann Tomlinson (p. 6) writes, others evoke the best in a wide range of learners. Likewise, some resource rooms limit options for students, whereas other resource rooms open access for students. She argues for thoughtful differentiation in all settings:In a time when we find our student populations becoming exponentially more diverse, we still find ourselves asking such questions as, What is the right label for this child? Is the general classroom best or is a resources setting preferable? The reality is that these questions lead us nowhere. Labels often stigmatize without offering a counterbalancing benefit. (p. 10)
Rather than weakening our promise to educate every child to his or her fullest potential, we must continue our quest to improve education on all fronts.
