Discussion #4: Is Special Education Hurting Schools?

[Holly Susan]

Greetings Class,

Here is our fourth discussion. As always, I love reading your
responses and seeing the engagement between y'all. I'm sure looking
forward to your thoughts on this one.

Read Clint Bolick's Education Week article, "A Bad IDEA Is Disabling
Public Schools" (September 5, 2001). The article presents the view
that special education is damaging schools and that we should
eliminate the term learning disabilities. What's your opinion? Are
learning deficits real disabilities? What might be some alternative
solutions to the problems the author raises?

Best,
Holly

[Meredith Blunda]

Clink Bolick raises a sticky and complicated issue in his article, “A
Bad IDEA is Disabling Public Schools.” He argues that the special
education legislation, IDEA, is basically taking away from our public
school system currently. He has many reasons for this argument: it
takes away from our schools financially, it labels students
unnecessarily, it includes students who are not actually supposed to
be included in such “special education” categories, and much more.

Overall, I disagreed with a lot of what Bolick had to say in his
article. I think students who have learning disabilities should be
served by special educators; it should not only be limited to
“exclusively students with physical or psychological
disabilities” (Bolick 4). I also do not think servicing students gives
them a “label” that separates them from other students. I think this
is a social stigma that has been built up too much, and if handled
properly by special educators and teachers, does not need to be an
issue.

I also think he made a lot of generalizations that I do not agree
with. Saying that “sophisticated parents clamor to have their children
labeled learning-disabled in order to glean special
accommodations” (Bolick 3), I was wondering where he got the data to
back up this statement. In my experience, I have predominantly met
parents who have run in the opposite direction when we even mentioned
an IEP for their students because of the thought of a “label.” He also
talked about “school officials can often exclude special-needs
students from high-stakes testing ” (Bolick 3) but what about the
whole No Child Left Behind Act, and our reporting of every child’s
progress? We are accountable for every single student, regardless of
his or her needs.

The area where I did agree with Bolick was when he was talking about
his son. When he said, “the only way the school could get him the
extra help he needed in writing was to assign the "learning
disability" label—a fact the IEP team reluctantly
acknowledged” (Bolick 2). I have had a few similar experiences as an
assistant in the past two years, where I have seen a student struggle
in certain areas and seen some teachers have the attitude that they
can only assist that student in certain ways if they have an IEP. I
find this frustrating – good teachers need to differentiate, IEP’s or
not!

An alternative solution to this issue would be to ensure that every
teacher is working to differentiate in the classroom for all students,
whether there is an IEP present or not. By using this best practice,
we can see if our students make progress in the normal classroom
setting with just these accommodations, and maybe then we can lower
the number of students sent into the special education process in the
first place.

[betsy hagan]

Meredith, like you I agreed and disagreed with Clint Bolick's various
rationales. I actually googled him and found other things he has
written and it seems that he is a huge fan of school choice for
underprivileged children and has represented several of the cases in
Minnesota and Ohio for these issues. This article was written in
1991, and 10 years ago, there were huge abuses to the system in DC
similar to Greenwich, CT. Because DC didn't have its act together,
lots of wealthier families would get lawyers, make a big stink about
DC public schools and their children would end up at Washington's
prestigious Lab School as a result -- with DC picking up the tab (for
lots of families who earned $400K- 800K a year). There was a big
expose' in the Washington Post because many of the lawyers who wrote
all the 'new' laws with all the very specific time frames and
designated windows for testing and reporting back were also the folks
whose kids got to attend the Lab School (and the expose' pointed out
they could have easily afforded this school's tuition, so why make DC
pay...) so there was some truth to his accusations -- but again, the
article is 10 years old and DC has had its share of court cases and
now most schools follow all the laws with great care. But the truth
remains that DC still pays a huge part of the Sped budget for children
to attend private schools--many out of state, especially for severely
handicapped kids and these schools average about $125K a year to
attend. Cha-ching for DC.

There is a lot of dysfunction in the system but I don't know that his
suggestions will fix it. In the few short years I have worked in DC,
I have seen many abuses to the system and have to agree with him that
many of our kids are not getting the help they need. There are
administrative problems and when schools don't want to test, they
don't because they can hem and haw and not respond to a parent's
request but certainly will when anyone threatens to get an advocate
for their child.

I also agree that the only way some kids do get help is to get an
'unnecessary label'. I wish we could just give the kids who need OT
or speech help 'as needed' instead of the huge ordeal of expensive and
involved testing and then the creating of an IEP. Some of these
services are usually only needed for a few years and it seems odd that
we go to such an extreme. And yes there are parents who want their
kids labeled because they get an additional check. I had one last
year and she wanted her son labeled ED so badly she wouldn't give him
his ADHD meds so that he would act up and then demand to have a
meeting so that she could push the issue. It was really scary to hear
a parent demanding her child be institutionalized. The system as is
isn't going to get any better without some better solutions. Giving
states more flexibility sounds reasonable to me. But I also know that
if there wasn't a law some folks wouldn't bother so it is hard to
really know what would work, but I would like to see more kids get the
kind of help they need without a label if possible--especially in the
younger grades.

I am not at all sure what shifting from process to performance would
entail and I certainly don't like the sound of funding incentives
based on performance (p.4) . The emphasis lawmakers are placing on
results seems really misinformed to me. And could someone explain why
special needs kids should NOT be excused from testing? Why does
Bolick insist this is wrong? Sounds like SC, LA and KY did something
wise for a change (p. 3). Sped kids also have MR and other conditions
that making testing a really idiotic thing to do. Not all kids with
an IEP are like his and just don't like to write or spell poorly. And
while I am at it, does it really make sense to test all the ELL kids?
Some just got here and haven't learned the language yet, for goodness
sake! Where has all the common sense gone?

Bolick also mentions giving parents a choice. He continues to write
and advocate for choice in schools and he supports charters. Here I
think I may agree with him as well. I am not sure giving parents the
money and letting them run to whatever private school they choose is
always going to work but I think in failing school districts, this
should be an option for low income families. It has been tested in
some states and if the state is willing to allocate the money for
this, I think these children will really benefit from a private school
education. So I guess in this instance, the children will probably
perform better and then yes, performance really could be a goal for
special education services. The kids who get to go to the Lab school
in DC do well. I know I would love to send a few of my students
there!

[Emily Brooks]

I found Bolick’s article “A Bad IDEA Is Disabling Public Schools” very interesting. I find his main theory true—there is dysfunction in our education system and all students who have have special needs are not getting them. I completely agree with his statement: “the focus of the IDEA should shift from process to performance” (p. 4). I see this as a great idea, and a great platform to spring off of. An example: most of my colleague and friends who are special education teachers report that in their master’s classes they spent much more time learning how to diagnose disabilities, write IEP goals, and understand the complex world of special education than actually learn how to teach the children in the system. What on earth is the purpose of the diagnosis if nothing is done about it? IEP meetings that I have attended are more about the process of the paperwork and going through the motions than actually getting at the heart of the child’s learning. This infuriates me to no end.

I have come to the conclusion that no system can please everyone; there will always be people trying to beat the system and there will always be people who are failed by the system. I don’t know what else to say about this and I dont have an alterantive suggestion about IEPs and special education except to focus more on the CHILD and the instruction and teaching that goes along with that child.

I think having IEP goals are important so that teachers know what students need to know and how to best serve their students. But the way IEP goals are written and implemented (at my school and others, although not all schools) are just throwing together state standards, plugging in a number of individualized hours and calling it a “plan.” That is not a plan. Instead of IEP goals that are solely aligned with state standards, imagine a system of goals that were aligned with a student's learning modality or preference. I can imaine goals being something like  “Daniel needs three opportunities per learning block to understand the skill at hand kinesthetically” or “Josse requires a visual representation next to all math and science vocabulary words.” These are things that a teacher can implement immediately that will offer students the learning opportunities they need. Additionally, they are much more nuanced than a standard, and are personalized and invidualized for their learnng style.

 

I think Bolick would agree with my idea, except his big goal for IDEA is: “The result would be an IDEA focused exclusively on students with physical or psychological disabilities, who now number fewer than half the program's beneficiaries” (p. 4). Although important for these students to get targeted services, these students are not the only students who need targeted services and they are not the only students who deserve them.

 

Part of this all just comes down to good teaching, right? Being a good teacher means you are constantly diagnosing your students needs and providing them with individualized opportunities to learn and excel.  Would we even need IEP’s if every teacher did this every day? You don't need an IEP to differentiate. In fact, in my classroom, there are a handful of students who have much more challenging circumstances than the students with IEPs.

 

The bottom line is that as teachers we need to serve ALL of our students ALL of the time, IEP or not. The field of education is filled with tons of systems that are ineffective and unfair, and most alarmingly, don’t have the child’s success as its ultimate goal. The system of special education is one of them. But we have a job to do!!! And cant get bogged bown by the systems!! At least that I what I tell myself....

[Emily Brooks]

> ...
>
> read more »

[OMM]

After reading this article; especially when the author said, “Seven
years ago, my young song was classified as learning-disabled. When I
questioned the battery of experts constituting the IEP team at his
Fairfax County, VA; public schools about the nature of his disability,
I was told that he had a “deficit” in his writing abilities relative
to his intellectual capacity. ‘This is not a symptom, not a
disability.’ I replied….But the only way the school could get him the

extra help he needed in writing was to assign the ‘learning

disability’ label….Yes, I would say eliminate the term learning
disability it is only a deficit. (Education Week: A Bad IDEA is
Disabling Public Schools http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/09/05/01bolick.h21.html?pr….)
Most children suffer with this if we look at it from that viewpoint.
His son received an IEP and funding for something must children have a
great deficit in. My kindergartners can read and spell words but
getting it on paper is a very difficult process for them. They can
see their trains of thoughts are merely what they would put on paper.
Most schools districts do not meet their AYP scores because a lot of
children can not even write a BCR and they is no funding for them.
The school districts are quick to pass over children who really need
extra help and to the thought of giving funding or an IEP to a child
for the lack of writing skills. However, after teaching for 3 years I
would say to eliminate the term learning disability is to say all
students learn the same and this is definitely not true.

There are children who really need support and they really do have
learning disabilities. I see this daily with my students, but I have
to observe them before I can actually submit them to the Special Ed
department. I do believe children are classified to early and if we
as teacher first use several different strategies and differentiate
instruction properly we could see truly if the child has a disability.

Are learning deficits real disabilities? According to this article,
in private schools, children just receive tutoring or extra help;
however, under IDEA they are labeled with a learning disability.
(Education Week: A Bad IDEA is Disabling Public Schools
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2001/09/05/01bolick.h21.html?pr….)
I look at a learning deficit like I look at the diet of a person. If
you are not eating enough potassium your body will show it through the
tightening of muscles and dehydration of the muscles and etc. This
can be fixed, just add more potassium to your diet. With a learning
deficit give extra help, add tutoring programs, ask parents to
reinforce what has been learned in the classroom at home. For
instance, I go over six Dolch words per week and I ask the parents to
have the students write two sentences at least 3 times a week to help
them understand where to place the word and word usage. So I can see
their point of using this as a disability, but if I were to have a say
so, I would say no.

Alternative solutions are hard to really come up with because so many
have been used before. Children with learning disabilities should
have all the support needed to get to their potential learning
status. Children with learning deficits should have support as well
but first try a different approach such as writing courses starting
from Pre-K in the schools going up to 12th grade. Most the money
spent today is wasted on things less important when we are raising a
nation of left behind children.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[kande9un]

Betsy and Meredith,

I too agree and disagree with Bolick's view of special education and
the damage IDEA is doing to our public schools. I think he brings up
a really good point about how we service our children with "learning
disabilities", whether or not they are true disabilities and whether
or not we should be processing students through some system in order
to give them some extra tutoring, accommodations or assistance. This
is a very convoluted issue, though, and not one that can be easily
answered or fixed with one simple solution. First, are learning
deficits true disabilities? This is a tough question, and clearly one
that Bolick has a concise answer to--NO. I am not sure I totally
agree with his answer. I was curious about what the definition of
disability was and Wikipedia came up with this:

A disability may be physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional,
and developmental or some combination of these.

Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity
limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a
problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a
difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action;
while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an
individual in involvement in life situations.
Thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction
between features of a person’s body and features of the society in
which he or she lives.

—World Health Organization[1]

Based on this definition, I would think that a processing issues or a
learning deficit would be considered a disability. Some students do
have serious processing issues, which disable them from learning or
interacting with the grade level content that they are being taught.
Based on this disability, students need to be placed on a very strict
plan in order to make sure their needs are being met, they are being
accommodated for, and that they aren't falling through the cracks.

Which leads me to my next question, do students with these processing
or learning deficits really need to go through this whole special
education process and get labeled--as having a disability (which some
may argue they do or do not have) to simply receive services which
will help them learn better? The answer should be no! But like
Bolick states in his article when discussing the situation with his
son, "the only way the school could get him the extra help he needed
in writing was to assign the "learning disability" label" (p.2). The
fear, I presume, is that if we are not vigilant with paper work or
keeping track of the special education student, then he or she might
not receive the services he or she needs and deserves. I think this
is a legitimate concern, and a concern that I would be more
sympathetic with, if the tracking and paper work being done for our
special education students was less of a process (which Bolick
discusses on page 4) and more of a way of improving learning for our
special education students. As Emily mentioned in her post, the many
IEP and SST meetings I have also been a part of have not rendered
anything beneficial (in my eyes) for the student. Instead, it seems
as if these meetings are more of a formality so the school can check
the box and show that they have met the student's needs, or at least
documented that they have met his or her needs.

A solution to this problem would be to get rid of IEPs all together,
or to have every child have an IEP. We as teachers should know are
students' strengths and weaknesses; we should be differentiating our
instruction and making the necessary accommodations for ALL of our
students, regardless of their levels or deficits. Every student
deserves this type of individualized and specialized instruction, and
they should not have to go through some lengthy process, and receive a
label, in order to receive services, such as a tutor, differentiated
homework, test accommodations, etc. If each teacher was conscientious
and tracked all of his or her students, then there would be no need
for the whole special education process. It would also leave a lot
more time for teachers to meet together to collaborate on how to best
differentiate and make accommodations for all students, rather than
fill out paperwork. I agree with Bollick, that all students should be
receiving these services, not just the ones who have IEPs.


To reflect a little more on Bolick's article and others' posts, Betsy,
I too am concerned with special education students and ELL students
taking part in high-stakes testing. Many of these students are not on
grade level, or speaking English proficiently and we have them take a
grade level, multiple choice, non-differentiated test. I do not think
it is a fair assessment on what these students truly know and is not
an appropriate tool to test their knowledge either--this is another
example of process instead of performance--checking off the box,
instead of doing what is best for the student.

I also agree with you Betsy, as mentioned above, that we shouldn't
have to label a student in order for them to receive OT or speech
therapy or counseling services. Why does a child need to go through
the SST process before we can offer those services? Is it all about
money and paying for services? The process seems to be very
backwards, if we are not supplying the services right away that could
make a huge difference in a child's ability to learn or interact in
the classroom.

Lastly, I too like the idea of giving a parent a choice and allowing
them to place their child where they see fit. I think that this would
empower the parents as well as the child to be able to make their own
decision and not to be told what to do or what is going to be done by
the school or district.

It seems to me that our special education system has become far too
rigid and some flexibility within the system would benefit our
students and teachers.

[Keith McNamara]

Much of what has been said so far in this thread about ensuring that
students get all the extra support they need with or without an IEP I
think is sound. In my (limited) experience with the process of
referring students for special education accommodations, it is a very
arduous and lengthy bureaucratic exercise. And, no doubt, abuses to
the system are likely to be found everywhere. However, I think it's
still important to consider what the ultimate purposes are when
referring students, which should be to allow students with specific,
diagnosable disabilities better access (not an unfair advantage) to
the mainstream curriculum that they may not get through differentiated
instruction alone. In many cases, students with certain difficulties
with focus or attention (like ADHD) or those with auditory processing
disorders do not function as well in a classroom full of other kids
rife with all kinds of distracting stimuli. For these kids, the one on
one (or small group) attention is just what is needed to allow them to
perform academically. So long as the referral leads to a careful
evaluation by appropriate parties (teachers, parents, and specialist
professionals like psychologists and speech pathologists) an IEP can
be a blessing.

And, yes, theoretically every student should have their own IEP:
learning goals should always be tailored to the specific needs of
individual students. But the IEP is often created through a very
careful and deliberate analysis (again, often through specialists
professionals using complex comprehensive assessments) that go beyond
the scope of the expertise and assessing capabilities of the classroom
teacher. And, of course, given this investment of time, money and
energy, no wonder the process takes a long time (can you imagine
referring each student in your class?). But often students with
learning disabilities have very specific needs (such as trouble with
fine motor coordination, or a delay in phonemic awareness of certain
sounds) that can only be discovered through such careful assessment.
And typically those needs can be met through explicit targeted
instruction with a teacher trained in working with those specific
problems.

But because of the expense (mostly in terms of time involved and
laborious paperwork) referring students for the purpose of potentially
crafting IDEA mandated IEP goals should always be reserved for those
who do not respond to multiple attempts at differentiated instruction
offered by their general education teachers.

[Drew Smith]

After reading “A Bad IDEA is Disabling Public Schools,” I agreed like
many people have mentioned, with the overriding message of the
article, IDEA is quite dysfunctional. On the other hand, I disagree
with the finer points of the author’s argument, most notably how he
just seems to throw all the issues into one. I think most people can
agree that the law itself has several flaws. I however, think it is
best to look at those flaws separately and brainstorm methods to
improve IDEA as a whole.

To begin with some agreements, is the financial aspect of IDEA. As
the article suggests, IDEA “constitutes the largest unfunded federal
mandate in American education” (Bolick 1). The federal government
created a law that they cannot afford and furthermore, states are
having an incredibly difficult time funding as well. Even more
recently with the No Child Left Behind Act the federal government has
forced schools to meet particular requirements without the federal
funding that is needed. Just a few weeks ago President Obama
mentioned this disconnect as Congress begins to rewrite NCLB. The
same type of honesty will be needed to fix IDEA as well. We need to
find a way to make special education in this country more efficient
and less expensive.

Furthermore, as Emily mentioned, we do need to shift the goals of
IDEA, most notably around the idea of student progress (Bolick 4). I
do not agree with the funding incentives as Bolick suggests, but the
goal of every student should be to show progress whether there is an
IEP or not. I do not know enough about disabilities as a whole to
suggest who should or should not have an IEP, but I wholeheartedly
agree with the initial mission statement from IDEA in regards to all
children, a “free appropriate public education.” Alternative
solutions should begin with stronger scientific studies and testing to
ensure that we are providing supplemental services to the students
that truly to need it though.

There are huge issues when it comes to the finances, diagnosing young
people, overrepresentation of African-Americans, putting students into
tracks, how we serve IEP’s and more, but to say it is “imperiling the
ability of every public school to fulfill its mission” is a dangerous
overstatement (Bolick 1). There are low-income public schools
throughout the country that thrive even with IDEA, so that should
immediately discount that statement. Are there times when IDEA costs
schools too much many and when IEP meetings became a waste of time and
money? Absolutely. Are African-Americans overrepresented?
Absolutely. However, I do not see either of those as major reasons
less than 25% of children in Washington, DC are reading proficiently.

[Betsy]

Drew, thank you for pointing out that the federal government created a
law they couldn't afford! I think in my limited experience with the
SPED process, I have observed many administrative biases to add to
the overall dysfunction. On one side, the school gets extra money
for every sped student but then again, there is great reluctance to
test because of the cost involved. Obviously sped staff have to be
able to handle the caseload of students or they are legally not in
compliance so the whole thing becomes even more of a nightmare. This
year, I have found it interesting to discover the person who actually
does the testing at our school continues to put the breaks on testing
requests--this even after the parents have requested it -- she says
she is too busy and wants to observe these students herself first. I
just found out that she chairs the Sped Department something or other
for DCPS so her reluctance to spend money is obvious but I have two
children that has been in the system for three years now and still no
testing on the horizon. I saw her today and reminded her she said
back in OCTOBER she would be in to observe one of my students...Emily
you are so very right when you say the focus should be on the child.
We do a huge disservice when we just keep pushing them along when
there are obvious problems beyond their control. Even with laws in
place, folks push it. I am not sure it is my job to inform parents of
their legal rights to get an advocate for their child but I will if
they continue to be ignored by those who should know better. It is
all so disheartening sometimes...
I guess the real question becomes, is it realistic and feasible to
endeavor to give every child a 'free and appropriate' education? If
we still believe that it is, then please invest in training teachers
better so we can handle all the different kinds of emotional and
behavioral needs, disabilities, challenges and exceptionalities that
walk into our classrooms because I for one, need more support in
this!

[Betsy]

oh dear, TYPO! make that brakes not breaks...

[Alida Maravi]

Like most, I did agree with Bolick's general argument that there are
extreme flaws in IDEA and special education provision in public
schools. A couple of summers ago, I worked as an intern at the
Department of Education with the Office of the General Counsel,
specifically with the lawyers that dealt with IDEA issues. My main
responsibility was reading through letters sent to the DOE from
parents and their representatives claiming that they were not provided
with the services guaranteed to them through IDEA, and aiding one of
the IDEA lawyers in drafting a response to these letters based on the
wording of the law. Throughout this process, I noticed that the
Department often deferred these complaints to the local education
agencies (school districts and state boards of education) because of
budgetary issues. It was a rare case that was actually directly
handled by the Feds, a fact which supports Bolick's point that IDEA in
a way is "an unfunded mandate". I also noticed certain benefactors
abusing the system and receiving full tuition from the government for
private schools when their child's problem did not warrant such
measures. The process was frustrating, not just to me, but to all
IDEA lawyers whose hands were tied by the wording of the law and by
threats to sue, which in accordance to what Bolick said, did seem to
be coming mainly from families who could afford big fancy lawyers and
could therefore probably afford special help for their kids at no cost
to the public school system. Because of state accountability
requirements, I do feel as if minority students are overrepresented in
special education programs and often do not receive the help they
need, and in this way IDEA has been used by the system to fail these
students. However, I don't agree with Bolick's solution to the
ailments of IDEA. He indicates that parents should have choice and
basically promotes the voucher system that he decried a few paragraphs
earlier. Instead of focusing policy efforts from the Federal
Government to improve public education in the country, a system where
the government could reimburse families for private school tuitions
would only take much needed funds away from public education. Because
private schools are not required to let all students in, they could
deny entry to students based on prejudiced views even if those
students had the funding to attend a situation that would further
cause the achievement gap to grow. This could lead to a situation
where public schools in general would be "ware-housing the have nots"
as Bolick puts it, instead of special education programs. In order to
prevent "unfunded" mandates, while providing specialized help to
students who are not just "slow learners" as Bolick calls them, but
who are behind in school because the public school system has failed
them their entire academic career, I think a move towards national
standards and the centralization of public education would be the most
beneficial. Left up to the states, it is obvious that both federal
and local funds are spent inefficiently and further promote the
bureaucratic nonsense that only detracts from helping students in
need. It is also clear that state governments, based on constituents
and historical realities do not always make fair and equitable
decisions when it comes to public education, especially in urban,
minority areas. If we are going to abide by the 14th Amendment, it is
necessary for the Federal government to intervene and create systems
that are more direct and efficient. In my opinion "states rights" can
take the back burner, while our government takes control and ensures
the civil rights guaranteed to all Americans in the Constitution.

[Tiffany (india) Starke]

Discussion #4
I.D.E.A. PRODUCES INSTRUCTIONAL CASUALTIES
Reading this article has sparked many thoughts for me. My reflection
here will exhibit (some of) my views on Special Education Warfare.

Since the 1970s, the law IDEA (individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act) has vowed to deliver a free, appropriate, public
education to all school aged children with disabilities. Local schools
everywhere are legally required to accept disabled students and
provide them with IEPs (Individual Educational Plans) that are in
compliance with varied federal stipulations. In return, the
educational mafia (IDEA) secures some discretionary funding to aid
school districts in creating programs to meet the diverse needs of
these labeled students.

However, IDEA has not been the most effective tool. I believe that the
failure of IDEA lies in the complex process used to determine the size
and nature of each child’s entitlement. This process has not only
failed to achieve its purpose of ensuring the most suitable education
for each disabled child but, it also marginalized the parents the act
was intended to empower, not to mention a stream of compliance driven
paperwork so overwhelming that special educators are sometimes driven
to quit the profession. Worse, IDEA has undermined the relationships
between parents and educators; pitting parents against schools in
bitter struggles over limited resources (We are all familiar with
this). Because the act’s procedures require savvy, aggressive
navigation, its benefits flow disproportionately to wealthy families,
often leaving lower-income children poorly served.

Tens of thousands of students in the special education system have
been placed there not because of a crucial mental or emotional
handicap, but because they were never taught to read properly. These
students, who have been failed by mainstream classes and teachers, are
then referred to special education and labeled "learning disabled."
There, they are failed a second time, by a badly flawed system
designed to be their safety net. I’m sure many of you are with me thus
far.

The needless referrals and inadequate instruction for these children
are widely acknowledged by educators and school officials but, are
rarely addressed. As a result, public education has spiraled upward
and academic prospects have dimmed for the otherwise bright children,
I will refer to as "instructional casualties."

In my opinion, learning disabilities have become a sociological sponge
used to soak up the spills of general education. Seemingly, half of
the district’s children/students are referred to as "learning
disabled. This label serves as a catch-all category primarily for
children who have trouble reading. I’m certain that we all can agree
that this category has grown significantly over the years, and
continues to do so.

Almost all of the students, who have been stamped learning disabled
because of reading difficulties, perhaps should not be in special
education at all. It just may be a great possibility that these
students were not been taught how to read. This should not strike us
as appalling because we have witnessed it, thought it to be a possible
justification, and/or we are currently witnessing it. Reading problems
that most of those students suffer from could have been reduced, or
even avoided altogether, had they received efficient, intensive
instruction much earlier in their educational careers. The basis for
how letters represent sounds and how letters go together to form words
(phonics) is missing. There was once a time when phonics was a
mandatory teaching component in academic curriculums. Over the years,
this has been yet another piece of education that districts worldwide
have sacrificed. It is clearly evident that no one thought that the
blatant minimalization of these lessons would contribute to a steady
rise in the number of students identified as learning disabled.

Many of these students were allowed to pine away in mainstream
classrooms until they slipped so far behind their peers that their
reading deficits “suddenly” became serious. The previous statement
opens the door for me to suggest that misguided teachers (and
administrators) have contributed to the improper placement of students
in special education classrooms. Teachers often want the best for
struggling students but, naturally (we) are overwhelmed trying to give
special attention in a crowded classroom.

Alternative solutions to this systematic epidemic……outside of
administrators and school districts funding ongoing training for
teachers and educational staff to effectively master the varied styles
of differentiated instruction to address multiple learning styles……the
damage has been done. Please forgive me if my answer seems limited
but, the alternative solution would be nothing short of a complete
overhaul of entire school systems and educational legislation, and
with great disgust I can admit that this will never happen.

We live in these United States; a land where many flee from their
country with the great hope of a better life, a chance, an
opportunity, a mission to fulfill, and better education for their
children. Have these dream seekers been bamboozled? “NO CHILD LEFT
BEHIND……..REALLY?

If you can reach just one…….teach one!

On Mar 21, 9:13 pm, Holly Susan <hollyme...@gmail.com> wrote: