Are Special Ed Programs Diluted?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't want the title of this thread to be too long. Diluted as in filled with people who don't need to be there, either because their disability isn't severe enough to need specialized education or because they were inaccurately labeled with a disability in the first place.

A friend of mine has a high position in the regional public education program for special education and this was the picture she was laying out for me when we caught up over coffee recently. She seemed to feel that many children were simply too young to determine if they really were on the autism spectrum, had ADHD, or had one of these behavioral disorders (isn't one of them called "oppositional defiant disorder" or something like that?). She often recommends that children be given simple workarounds but continue in mainstream education with no diagnosis so that they can get a little older. Instead of taking her advice, often the parents won't allow the kids to risk get Cs or being "different" so they take them to a doctor and "make sure" they get a diagnosis.

Now I study adults, not children, so I didn't really have an opinion about this. But I thought it was interesting and wondered if people here had any thoughts or experiences one way or the other.

My impression from parents that I've encountered on-line is that special services are often "all or nothing", and that education is too much of a standardised "production line" for turning out work-ready adults - especially now that children are expected to meet educational "milestones" at specific ages as part of many establishment's achievement targets.

In an ideal world, every child would receive "special ed", because it would be tailored to each child's individual learning style and academic capability. But the system is far too under-resourced and inflexible for this to be anything but a dream. Since assistance is "all or nothing", parents of children who need only a little extra help feel under pressure to jump the diagnosis hurdle, because the alternative is no help at all for their child.

I've seen children who seem not to need to be in a special education setting, until you put them in a mainstream setting - then it's very clear they can't cope there.

I've also seen kids who's needs 'aren't severe' enough for special schools, but who are horrendously under served by mainstream.

I do believe that not all kids in need of special education should be in the same classroom environment. It's entirely possible to have a child who seems relatively mild, but who would do well in a special needs setting with other children of similar ability.

I've also been in a school where behaviour was the primary special need and firmly believe there is need for special needs settings for children with diagnoses such as ODD, which is often regarded as bunkum.

What a great topic!! As a special ed teacher I have a few ideas. I've worked in several districts and a few special ed schools. (teaching is a later life calling for me and I love it!) First, IEPs are supposed to be based on academic needs, not behavior, unless the behavior is due to a situation that effects the student's ability to access the curriculum. So if a child is struggling with behavior but testing does not reveal any condition (AT/HD, autism, learning disabilities, dyslexia, etc) that student should not be on an IEP (Individual Education Plan). I've never really understood Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). In some cases it could stem from any other disability - it's better to be bad than to be dumb - but it could also be that the kid happens to naturally have a short temper.

In my personal experience my students are appropriately placed. I had one who was doing so well that we discontinued his IEP and put him on a 504 (he still gets his accommodations but no special ed services). But I was told, at a job interview of all places, that lately parents from wealthy communities are playing the system to have their children placed in an out of district school so that their children have the benefit of specialized education in a small, private setting. Likewise, I have heard stories of low income families coaching their children to do poorly, to even lie or fake testing in rhe hopes of getting additional support from the state.

I think for the most part special education is being used appropriately. There is much that could, and maybe should, be available to all students. I'd also like to see a better understanding of special ed within the general education community. I guess, like anything else, it's a work in progress.

It depends on the nature of the school district.

The larger the school district, the more problematical special ed programs seem to be.

In NYC, I've seen autistic children of normal intelligence be given the same, identical material for a whole week.

There is the sense that special ed kids, despite their intelligence, are assumed not to benefit from academic work. Instead, practical life skills are emphasized.

Educators tend to be idealists (I know because I am one), but it is also worth considering this question from the less-idealist point of view of economics, or perhaps economic psychology.

The question would be: Do upper-level special education administrators get paid more if there are more people in their programs? If the answer is yes, then you can be pretty sure these programs will become "diluted" in your sense (i.e., they will grow beyond actual need). That's a law almost as inexorable as gravity.

I think special ed for high-functioning autistic children should be like more support at young ages + training important skills like EF and communication, then reduced support at older ages with the goal of no special support by final two years of high school. I don't think kids should enter special ed or receive special support and stay with those throughout their K-12 education. They may be ill-prepared for independent adulthood life and higher education if they are too supported and accommodated and not allowed to fail sometimes in school.

Hi Dachsowned,

In your experience, do you find the majority of your students obtaining the regular, rather than the IEP, diploma?

If they don't get the regular diploma, do some get the equivalency diploma?

When I was having this conversation with my friend, another lady overheard us and joined our conversation. She was a former special ed teacher. She was not as progressive a thinker as my friend and I, so it was useful to hear her point of view.

She did not see the point of investing in anything more than "life skills" education and maybe low level work preparation (sweeping the floor type jobs) for kids who had tested low on IQ tests. I don't take a lot of stock in those tests, especially for younger children. Haven't some of you here on WP been misdiagnosed or miscategorized as being low functioning as a child, when now you are working and carrying on a regular life? I was pretty sure several of the people I talk to here on a regular basis had been in that situation. I said that to this lady and she didn't seem to believe me.

If there are people here who were miscategorized as being low functioning when you were a kid, was your education geared more toward life skills like this lady said, or did you also have exposure to standard school curriculum?

I would say that that's most likely the case with most run of the mill special ed unfortunately. Now I go to a private special ed school that has a pretty tight criteria for who they will admit. But of course that means they have a fairly high tuition fee, that a lot of people won't pay for or can't afford.

I believe the only disadvantage to obtaining the equivalency diploma is that one has more difficulty joining the armed forces with the equivalency.

Otherwise, with the equivalency, as far as I know, one can get into any college. If they pass the entrance exams, they could immediately go to a 4-year college.

I feel that the equivalency diploma could very well be a viable option for many of your students who don't receive the "regular" diploma (known as the Regents Diploma in New York State).

Would you agree?

My school has a special ed program, and it's generally thought of as being for mentally disabled kids. But there are some kids in there that seem normal but have learning disabilities, and who take regular classes. But they are still treated as if they are severely disabled. I question how it's determined whether a student qualifies to be in the program.