Lawyers
50 East Court Street
Doylestown, PA 18901
ibtibyounglaw@verizon.net1

Re:  "School Chiefs to Urge Changes in No Child..Law"

 

Dear ____________:

I am an attorney representing special needs children & parents in Special Education and other matters.  It is troubling to the community I serve that the broad generalized label "special education students" is being used to shift the focus of blame in the debate over the poor showing of schools in the NCLB testing.  The label, as such, is almost meaningless used in this context except as a strategically loaded PR handle. The federal civil rights legislation which guarantees educational rights to exceptional children (all children, not "special education" children, including the top 10%  IQ students classified as gifted, which falls within the special education umbrella) is complex and currently under attack from many sides.  A wider understanding of this matter should be presented to your readership before the automatic acceptance of the general label "special education student" is entered into the discourse. 

The following opinion letter, setting forth my response is appended and intended for publication.  If you would like to be put into contact with knowledgable exceptional children's education professionals both inside and outside the school administration, please let me know.  I can be reached at my office number (215) 444-0445, or through this email address.  Thank you for your attention:

 

Text of opinion:          In response to the poor results of some schools in the first round of No Child Left Behind Title 1 testing, blame has been wide ranging. Lack of adequate funding, methodology of the tests themselves, the effects high-stakes testing impose on curriculum - all are legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and administrators. More troubling has been the singling out of certain vulnerable sub-groups of students as culprits. It seems the interpretation of the results has been shifted: rather than schools failing students, it is  subtly suggested that it is the students who are failing the schools. As reported in your recent coverage of the "Superintendent’s Rally", the finger is pointing at special education students as a group.

To the uninformed, the label itself seems to justify the criticism. The public image of special education students may be of children with low ability who are neither expected nor required to take a fully productive roll in school or society. To the informed, including teachers, parents, and administrators as well, this image is patently false. The truth of special education is much different.

Who in fact are these students? They are children who, through the provisions of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and our own state laws, have Individual Education Plans in place at their schools. The child find provisions of these laws, far from intending to single out children for exemption from educational achievement by labeling them, are meant to foster that very achievement by use of appropriate teaching methods.

In Bucks County, for example, between 12 and 20% of most student bodies have IEP’s (1) and the number is rising as research into learning styles increases the knowledge of educators. Fewer than 12% of these children  have significant cognitive impairment like mental retardation (2), a similar percentage to those classified as gifted.  This means that the special education students group is made up of capable children coming to school with the ability to learn if properly taught.

As an alternative to NCLB testing, the superintendent’s propose that progress be measured by the student’s IEP’s. IEP’s are plans for achievement for and by an individual student. At their best they contain well-defined objectives and goals. As past and ongoing litigation between parents and school’s make clear, they are not always at their best. Schools frequently balk at implementation and measurements of achievement can be quite subjective. Moreover, the IDEA reauthorization legislation currently before Congress removes much of the requirements for IEP accountability - at the lobbying of school district administrators (a change opposed by both the NEA and disabilities education groups nationwide). Combined with exemption from NCLB requirements, this change would leave schools with much less accountability toward special education students than prior to NCLB.

In the rush to justify poor NCLB results, there is a risk of codifying  the proposition that schools cannot and should not be required to educate a given subgroup of children to any objective standard of proficiency merely because the school has placed upon them a label.  And at what future cost  to these children, the adults they will become and America as a whole? 

It is wise to be ever cautious of  what President Bush calls the "bigotry of low expectations." Any legislative alterations to fine tool the NCLB legislation must truly be in the interest of candid, accurate reporting and success for all students as individuals, not merely in the interest of the appearance of success for the school administrators at the expense of the most vulnerable.

 

Footnote1 National Center for Educational Statistics

Footnote 2  Quality Counts, report sponsored by the Pew Foundation