Chapter 3
Education for Special School Populations

The right to public education is guaranteed to all children in the United States. For many children, however, acquiring an education that fits their special needs is not always easy. For the mentally or physically disabled, gifted or talented, or significantly disadvantaged, preparation for adulthood requires extra effort on the part of both the children and the education system.

DISABLED CHILDREN

In 1975 Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142, amended in 1983 by P.L. 98-199), which required schools to develop programs for disabled children. In 1992 the Act was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It defines disabled children as those who are:

mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf, orthopedically impaired, other health impaired, speech and language impaired, visually impaired, seriously emotionally disturbed, children with specific learning disabilities who, by reason thereof, require special education and related services (20 U.S.C. 1401 [a][1]).

In its 1993 report To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of All Children with Disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) stated the purposes of IDEA:

• To help states develop early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.
• To assure a free appropriate public education to all children and youth with disabilities.
• To protect the rights of disabled children and youth from birth to age twenty-one and their families.
• To help provide early intervention services and the education of all children with disabilities.
• To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to provide early intervention services and education of children with disabilities.

Change in the Number Served

As a result of IDEA, an increasing number of students have been served in programs for the disabled. According to the U.S. Department of Education, during 2001–02, about 6.4 million disabled children and youth ages three through twenty-one were served. Between 1976–77 and 2001–02 the number of students participating in these programs rose by more than 2.7 million, a 73% increase. Between 1991–92 and 2001–02, the largest change was in the number of students with autism or traumatic brain injury from 5,000 to 118,000, a 2,360% increase. (See Table 3.1.)

Prior to the 1991–92 school year, students with autism or traumatic brain injury were distributed among several categories, but primarily "other health impairments." Even with the removal of students with autism or traumatic brain injury, the category "other health impairments," which includes students who have attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), increased by 481% between 1991–92 and 2001–02, from 58,000 to 337,000. The number of deaf-blind students decreased from 3,000 in 1980–81 to 2,000 in 2001–02, a 33% reduction. The proportion of children and youth with disabilities, as a percentage of public school enrollment, has risen steadily from 8.3% in 1976–77 to 13.4% in 2001–02. (See Table 3.1.) Some of this increase may reflect more effective identification of people with disabilities.

The majority of students with disabilities who were served in federally supported programs in 2001–02 were those identified as having specific learning disabilities (44.4%), speech or language impairments (16.9%), mental retardation (9.2%), emotional disturbance (7.4%), or

other health impairments (5.3%). Students with multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, autism or traumatic brain injury, visual impairments, and deaf-blindness, each made up about 2% or less of students with disabilities. Disabled preschool children (those aged three to five) made up 9.6% of students with disabilities in 2001–02. (See Table 3.1.)

Learning Disabilities

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act defines a learning disability (LD) as "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, or do mathematical calculations."

The law includes perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia (inability to use words) as learning disabilities. The LD category does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps; mental retardation; or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. To be categorized as learning disabled, a student must also show a severe discrepancy between potential, as measured by Intelligence Quotient (IQ), and current ability level, as measured by achievement tests. A student who has problems in school and needs remedial education but does not fit into any other category may be labeled as having a learning disability.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2001–02, 2.8 million students were classified with specific learning disabilities, 3.6 times the 796,000 students identified in 1976–77. In 1976–77, LD students made up fewer than one-quarter (21.5%) of all those with disabilities, compared to almost half (44.4%) in 2001–02. (See Table 3.1.) Better understanding and diagnosis of learning disabilities may explain part of the increase. The growth also may reflect the problem of fitting students into a category, as mentioned above.

Characteristics of Special Education Students

According to the 24th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2002), males are disproportionately represented among students in special education programs. More than two-thirds of all special education students are male. In 2000–01 males made up about 68% of all secondary school students with disabilities. Several theories have been proposed to explain the disproportion of males in various disability categories. Some evidence suggests that boys have a greater vulnerability than girls do to certain genetic maladies and are more prone to developmental lags because of physiological or maturational differences. Some researchers have reported a higher degree of reading disabilities in boys than in girls, although others failed to find similar problems among males in other countries. Still others have suggested gender bias in the diagnosis and classification of students with disabilities.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 62.3% of the disabled population ages six through twenty-one in 2000–01 was white. White students made up a slightly smaller percentage of the special education population than their representation in the general population (62.9%). African-American students, who accounted for 14.8% of the general population, comprised 19.8% of the disabled population, while the proportion of Hispanic students in special education was 14.5%, less than their representation in the general population (17.5%). Of the remainder of the disabled population, 1.9% were Asian/Pacific Islander and 1.5% were Native American.

These racial and ethnic percentages varied slightly in 2003, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in Data Tables for OSEP State Reported Data. The total number of students served under IDEA increased to 6.6 million in 2003. Of this number, more than four million (60.8%) were classified as non-Hispanic whites, and 1.3 million (20.1%) were African-Americans. Hispanic children, at approximately one million, made up another 15.6% of those served, along with 137,544 Asian/Pacific Islander students (2.1% of program participants) and 90,349 Native American/Alaska Natives (1.4%).

Serving Disabled Students

Public Law 94-142 states that an Individual Education Plan (IEP) must be developed for each child who receives special education services. It must include a statement of the student's current performance as well as long-term (annual) goals and short-term objectives. It must also describe the nature and duration of the instructional services designed to meet the goals. Finally, it must describe the methods of evaluation that will be used to monitor the child's progress and to determine whether the objectives are being met.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2002–03 there were more than 6.4 million students in the United States who had an IEP. Rhode Island had the highest proportion, at 20.4%, and Colorado had the lowest, at 10.1%. (See Table 3.2.)

Inclusion Programs

An ongoing debate has developed over where and how disabled students should be taught. For years, many disabled children were taught at home or in special classrooms or schools. Now, however, many parents, educators, and specialists believe that including disabled

students in regular classrooms benefits both disabled and nondisabled students.

In this inclusion model of instruction, the special education student spends part of the day in the regular classroom. The student spends the rest of the day in a resource room with a special education teacher, where the student receives help in subjects such as reading or mathematics. According to the U.S. Department of Education, during the 2000–01 school year, 96% of disabled students ages six through twenty-one received most of their educational and related services in school settings with nondisabled students. Spending most of the time in the regular classroom and less than 21% of the time outside of the regular classroom was the most common instructional environment (46.5%). An additional 29.8% of students received special education and related services by spending between 21% and 60% of the school day outside of regular classes. Another 19.5% were served most of the time in separate classrooms within a regular education building, spending more than 60% of the day outside of the regular classroom. Almost nine out of every ten speech or language impaired children (85.6%) were educated primarily in regular classrooms, and more than half (51.7%) of those with mental retardation received special education mostly outside of regular classrooms. (See Table 3.3.)

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the 2003–04 school year, 50% of all students with disabilities were in regular classrooms 80% or more of the day. White students (55%) were more likely to spend 80% or more of their day in regular classrooms than African-American (39%), Hispanic (46%), Native American (50%), or Asian/Pacific Islander (49%) students. (See Figure 3.1.)

Public Opinion about Standards for Special Education Students

In "The 36th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitude toward the Public Schools" (Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, Phi Delta Kappan, September 2004), the public was asked if students enrolled in special education should be required to meet the same standards as all other students in the school. Almost two-thirds (61%) of participants believed that special education students should not be held to the same standards as all other students, while 36% believed special education students should be required to meet the same standards as all other students in school. The percentage of public school parents who felt that special education students should not be held to the same standards as all other students was slightly higher (63%), while respondents with no children in school were less likely to feel this way (59%). (See Table 3.4.)

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; see Chapter 5), student scores on standardized tests are used to determine if a school is in need of improvement. The Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll asked the public whether a school should be designated as in need of improvement if special education students are the only group in the school that fails to make state goals. More than half (56%) of the public responded that the school should not be considered in need of improvement if scores of special education students are the only group in the school that fails to make state goals; however, 39% believed that the school should be considered in need of improvement. (See Table 3.5.)

Trends in Special Education

In 1986 Congress highlighted the importance of the preschool years by amending the Education of the Handicapped Act through Public Law 99-457, which lowered the age at which children were eligible for special education and related services to three years old. The amendments also established the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program to assist children and their families from birth to age three. Having children with special needs receive educational services at younger ages builds the foundation for learning the skills they will need in elementary school. For many disabled children, early education programs can reduce or even eliminate the need for intensive services later.

In addition, special education has helped to eliminate the myth that disabled individuals, even the severely disabled, are unwilling or unable to work. Schools are assessing the abilities and talents of students with handicaps and matching them with potential occupations. Disabled students are receiving more training in vocational skills, as well as in making the transition from school to community life and work.

Exiting from Special Education

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), only twenty-one states routinely collect data on students with disabilities who leave school. (See Figure 3.2.) In 1984–85, the Office of Special Education Programs began collecting data on students aged fourteen and older who left the education system. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2000–01, 582,791 students exited special education. Of this number, nearly one-third of exiting students with disabilities graduated with diplomas, 33,427 (6%) received attendance certificates, and 5,959 (1%) reached the maximum age for services, which varies by state. The remainder either no longer were receiving special education services (12%) or left the educational system for other reasons (including death). (See Table 3.6.)

According to the GAO, the overall completion rate for students with disabilities was 68% and the dropout rate was 29% in 2000–01. Students with emotional disturbances were most likely to drop out; in 2000–01 more than half (53%) dropped out of school. Those with sensory impairments, however, with an 83% completion rate, were most likely to finish their education with either a diploma or alternative credential. (See Table 3.7.)

Transition of Students with Disabilities to Higher Education and Employment

The U.S. Department of Education provides funding through Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 for state-level vocational rehabilitation programs to provide employment and training-related services for individuals with disabilities, giving priority to those who are significantly disabled. Assistance offered includes employment, training, educational, and support services. Colleges and universities are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) to make education accessible to students with disabilities. Services include alternative examination formats, readers, interpreters, and ramps for wheelchair access.

GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS

Defining Giftedness

For more than a century, researchers, scientists, and educators have tried to define the term "gifted." Historically, the term was closely associated with the concept of genius. After IQ tests were developed, people who scored poorly were labeled retarded, and those who scored extremely well were considered geniuses. Currently some observers criticize the use of IQ tests as the single measure of intelligence. They believe the tests are biased in favor of the white middle and upper classes and penalize those from different cultural backgrounds. Also, many researchers and educators believe that giftedness is more than high intellectual ability. It also involves creativity, memory, motivation, physical dexterity, social adeptness, and aesthetic sensitivity—qualities needed to succeed in life but not measured by IQ tests.

Researchers and educators generally agree that intelligence takes many forms and that multiple criteria are necessary for measurement. Educators are learning to identify outstanding talent by evaluating student abilities in different settings, rather than relying solely on test scores. The following definition, based on that in the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297), reflects the current knowledge and thinking.

• Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment.
• These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools.
• Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor.

Identifying Gifted Students

Most states and localities have developed definitions of gifted and talented students based on the 1972 Marland Report to Congress (P.L. 91-230, section 806). This definition identified such areas as general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing artistic talent, and psychomotor ability, and estimated that gifted students represent at least 3% to 5% of the student population. However, the methods used by most districts to identify gifted students lag far behind the Marland definition.

Serving Gifted Students

According to the National Survey on the State Governance of K12 Gifted and Talented Education (Michael Swanson, Tennessee Initiative for Gifted Education Reform, August 2002), identification of gifted students is mandated in thirty-two states. In some states gifted programming is mandated, and in others both identification and service are mandated. Twenty-four states do not have a full-time director of gifted education. Not all states and localities collect data in the same way, so it is difficult to determine the exact number of students served in gifted and talented programs.

When the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act was reauthorized in 1994, a small federal contribution was established. This program supports grants, research, and the development of national leadership abilities. The Act gives funding priority to programs that support gifted and talented students who are economically disadvantaged, speak limited English, or have disabilities. Under the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; also known as the No Child Left Behind Act), grants for gifted and talented education are awarded under two priorities. The first priority supports the development of models that serve students who are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, and the second priority supports state and local efforts to improve services for gifted and talented students. Authorized appropriations under the Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program for fiscal year 2005 totaled more than $11 million, an increase of nearly 70% from the $6.5 million appropriated in 2000.

DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

Children who are disadvantaged economically and socially often lag behind their peers. Statistically, they start preschool education later or miss it entirely and thus are less ready to start school. They have more learning disabilities, are more likely to be held back a grade, and ultimately have higher dropout rates. Among the disadvantaged groups defined by educators and observers are children from families with very low incomes; children who are linguistically isolated (LI) or have limited English proficiency (LEP), usually because they are members of immigrant families; and children who change schools frequently—for example, children of seasonal farm workers or homeless parents.

Table 3.8 shows the 1960–2001 dropout rates for sixteen- to twenty-four-year-olds. The table displays what statisticians refer to as the "status dropout" rate: those who were not enrolled in school but were not high school graduates. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2001 minority students (African-American, 10.9%; Hispanic, 27%) were more likely than white students (7.3%) to drop out. (See Table 3.8.) Since the Department of Education began tracking the dropout rate of Hispanic students in 1972, Hispanics have consistently dropped out of high school at a higher rate than white or African-American students. (See Figure 3.3.)

The Title I (formerly Chapter 1) education program is the major federal program designed to help states and schools meet the special educational needs of disadvantaged students. Title I originated as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-10) and was amended by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382). Title I provides funds for programs and resources so that schools can improve learning for at-risk students. In particular, schools with high concentrations of low-income children are targeted.

States and school districts can apply for Title I funds for a variety of programs aimed at improving the performance of disadvantaged students. According to the U.S. Department of Education, appropriations for Title I in fiscal year 2005 were more than $12.7 billion. Typically, states with higher numbers of poor, immigrant, and/or migrant students apply for and receive more federal funds.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, there were 49,829 Title I—eligible schools in the nation in 2002–03. California had the most Title I—eligible schools (5,489), followed by Texas (4,799), New York (2,716), Ohio (2,615), Illinois (2,412), and Pennsylvania (2,178). Nearly half (49.8%) of all students in the country attended a Title I—eligible school. More than 84% of students in the District of Columbia and 80% of students in Montana attended a school that was Title I—eligible in 2002–03. In Utah 19% of students attended a Title I—eligible school that year. (See Table 3.9.) Michigan data was incomplete at the time Table 3.9 was prepared, but the NCES reported in 2005 that 17.1% of Michigan students attended a school receiving Title I funds (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/).

According to the U.S. Department of Education, Title I appropriations totaled $8.5 billion in 2000–01. California ($1.1 billion), New York ($769.9 million), and Texas ($743.6 million), which are the largest states and have the largest proportions of poor children, accounted for more than 30% of the available Title I funding in 2000–01. Vermont ($19.6 million) and Wyoming ($19.3 million), which have small populations and very small proportions of poor children, each received less than 0.25% each of available Title I funding. (See Table 3.10.) By fiscal year 2004 total appropriations of Title I reached more than $14.3 billion, according to the NCES in Digest of Education Statistics, 2004 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_370.asp). California continued to receive the largest share of the funds, $2.1 billion, followed by New York ($1.4 billion) and Texas ($1.3 billion).

Free Lunch Eligibility

Students from families with low incomes are eligible for free or reduced-price meals at school. To determine allocations of funds under Title I, public schools are annually ranked according to the number of children eligible for free and reduced-price school meals as an indicator of the socioeconomic status of the school population. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2002–03, almost seventeen million students were eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch—more than 35% of all students in the United States. Kentucky (69%) had the highest rate of eligible students among the fifty states during the 2002–03 school year, while New Hampshire (15.5%) had the lowest. (See Table 3.2.)

LEP Students

Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) are those for whom English is not their first language. They are served by English as a Second Language (ESL) programs, which are sometimes known as English Language Learner (ELL) programs. The primary purpose of ESL programs is to teach students English so that they can learn the content of instruction in English.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, in 2002–03 there were more than four million students in the United States receiving ELL services. California (1.6 million), Texas (630,686), Florida (203,712), New York (178,909) and Illinois (168,727) had the largest numbers of ELL students. The states with the largest proportions of their students receiving ELL services were California (25.6%), New Mexico (20.4%), Nevada (15.9%) and Texas (14.8%). (See Table 3.2.)

Students on the Move

Children who move frequently during their school years are more likely to have emotional or behavioral problems, to repeat a grade, or to be suspended or expelled from school. Experts theorize that these children experience stress in the loss of old friends and familiar surroundings. Children may not understand the reasons for moving or may see the moves as a loss of autonomy. In addition, frequent moves may be a symptom of a stressed, chaotic family, a characteristic known to be related to emotional and school problems.

MIGRANT CHILDREN

With frequent moves, low incomes, and limited English skills, migrant children are at high risk for developing school-related problems. They often live in substandard housing and are frequently poor and alienated from other children at school. They may experience exposure to harmful agricultural chemicals and receive inadequate health care. These factors can make getting an education very difficult. The Title I Migrant Education Program (MEP), authorized under the Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1968 (P.L. 100-297), provides funding for state education agencies to meet the special needs of migrant children.

The term "migrant children" may refer to independent children who move often, perhaps from family to family, or to children of migrant workers who move frequently to secure jobs in farming, fishing, timber, or dairy industries. The MEP serves current and former (for up to three years) migrant children ages three through twenty-one. Most migrant education programs include preschool services, testing, regular academic or remedial instruction, bilingual education, vocational education, guidance and counseling, and health services.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, California (230,478), Texas (108,649) and Florida (49,091) had the largest number of students receiving migrant services during the 2001–02 school year. (See Table 3.2; although Table 3.2 is for 2002–03, data for migrant children were reported based on the prior school year.)

HOMELESS CHILDREN

The U.S. Department of Education estimates that approximately 800,000 children and youth experience homelessness at some point during each year. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 provides funding to facilitate the enrollment, attendance, and success in school of homeless children and youth. Changing schools significantly impedes a student's academic and social growth. The Act requires school districts to keep students in their school of origin, if at all possible, unless doing so is contrary to the wishes of the parents or guardians. According to the latest estimate available from the Department of Education, 87% of homeless children were attending school in 2001, up from 55% in 1996.

The McKinney-Vento Act was reauthorized under the NCLB Act of 2001. Under the law, schools cannot segregate homeless children in a separate program within a school based on homelessness alone. Also, schools must immediately enroll homeless students even if the students are unable to produce the educational records normally required for enrollment. In addition, states and their school districts must ensure that homeless children are provided transportation to and from the school they attended prior to becoming homeless, if their parents or guardians request it, and school districts must designate a local liaison for homeless children and youths. For fiscal year 2005, the federal government authorized $62.5 million in McKinney-Vento education grants for programs serving homeless children and youth.

Head Start

The Head Start program, established as part of the State eligible schools Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452), has been one of the most durable federal programs for at-risk children. Because disadvantaged children tend to be less prepared for an academic environment, Head Start operates where it is needed most—in early childhood, up to age five. Most children enter the program at ages three or four. In the past, not many children under age three were served by Head Start projects, but the 1994 reauthorization of Head Start (P.L. 103-252) established a companion program, Early Head Start (EHS), to serve infants and toddlers.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 9% of the 905,851 children enrolled in Head Start preschool programs in 2004 were two years old or younger, 34% were three years old, and 52% were four years old. Hispanic children accounted for 31.2% of enrollees; 31.1% were African-American; 26.9% were white; 5% were multiracial; 3.1% were Native American or Alaska Native; 1.8% were Asian; and less than 1% were Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. (See Table 3.11.)

Head Start appropriations increased substantially during the final two decades of the twentieth century. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 1980, the program served 376,300 students and had appropriations of $735 million. By 2000, 761,844 children were enrolled in Head Start, and funding reached $4.5 billion. More than $5.6 billion in Head Start funds were allocated in 2002. (See Table 3.12.) The Department of Health and Human Services reported on the Head Start Web site (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2005.htm) that since its inception in 1965, more than twenty-two million students have participated in Head Start programs.

In September 2005 the House of Representatives approved a bill that would strengthen the Head Start program. The bill was not without controversy, however, as it would allow Head Start programs run by religious organizations to discriminate against potential teachers based on their religious beliefs. Under the bill, qualified teachers could be fired or not hired if they do not share the same religious beliefs as the groups running the Head Start programs, and parent volunteers could be banned from participating in classrooms because of their religious beliefs ("Discrimination in Head Start," New York Times, September 28, 2005).