Special Education in the Context of School Reform

Since the early 1980s, school reform has been a catchphrase, but in special education it was not until about the turn of the twentieth century. Before, the twenty ieth century children with disabilities or special needs were often not attending school. Parents of these children were not yet open minded and still in the denial stage about their child’s condition.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, two of the most prominent school reform agendas having significant effects on special education were standards-based education and school choice.

Standards-based education aims to improve school performance and use accountability systems to enforce the standards. Before, students with disabilities have not included in schools’ accountability systems. By amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, it was mandated that students with disabilities be included in district and state assessments. Those schools that would violate it could have severe sanctions like loss of accreditation and funding.

School-choice reform focuses on the freedom of students to choose from a variety of alternatives to general public education. One trend is charter schools, which are publicly funded but follow a charter constructed by the school rather than by local government. Another form of school choice allows students to choose any public school within their designated district or cross district lines to attend another school. Choice may also involve magnet schools that offer special programs or concentrations, such as science and technology or performing arts. Open enrollment allows students to attend any public school in the state.

School choice affects special education when restrictions are placed on entry into particular schools. School-choice proponents argue that no single educational program works for all students, thus it benefits children, including students with disabilities, to be able to choose the school that best meets their needs. There is no best educational program. It depends on the learner’s and teacher’s characteristics.

*****************************

Placement

There are debates about on students with disabilities should be served or placed. Students with special needs should be

placed at the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent they could have. The controversy is whether full inclusion or a continuum of alternative placements is better.

First is in full inclusion, all students are educated full-time in a general education. However, the child receives special education support services in the general education classroom. Where it requires a classroom will have both a general education teacher and a special education teacher equally sharing the responsibility to teach the whole class. In consultation, a special education teacher works with many general education teachers, meeting with them and answering questions as needed or on a regular schedule.

Proponents of full inclusion believe that pulling a child out of the classroom to provide special education services or placing the child in a self-contained classroom or special school is inherently unequal and inferior and, therefore, immoral. They also argue that both the student with disabilities and his or her peers benefit from full inclusion, an argument that often places greater emphasis on social interaction than academic achievement.

Next is the Full continuum of placements. Its proponents as required by IDEA, note that since 1975 the law has mandated a continuum of placements of full-time in a general education classroom; part time in a special education resource room; full time in a special education self-contained classroom; in a separate special education school; at a residential facility; and home bound or in a hospital.

They believed that full-time placement in general education is not appropriate for every student with disabilities. Each student should be assessed and placed individually, based on the capabilities. Most students with disabilities need a more structured and clearly defined environment, than the general education classroom provides. Not all students could be place in the general education setting, like students with severe emotional or behavioral disabilities. It is either the teacher’s attention could be monopolized or cause danger on other students and the teacher.

*****************************

The Name Game

Nowadays parents and professionals had certain concern on labeling and categorizing of disabilities. One issue is whether students should be labeled at all. Proponents of labels such as learning disabled, deaf, or autistic believe that these labels provide a common ground for professionals, researchers, and parents to discuss practices and share knowledge about particular disabilities. Labels help teachers and administrators prepare for and provide a student with an appropriate education. Schools can better manage their budgets if they can quantify and describe the students needing additional funds and services.

Opponents of labels argue that labels permanently stigmatize the student. They believe that teachers and administrators lower their expectations of a labeled student, creating a vicious cycle in which the student is given fewer and fewer challenges and falls further behind grade level.

First- Name or Child- First policy should be used to avoid labeling that cause stigma. Instead of autistic or mentally retarded children, we should call them children with autism or mental retardation.

Reference:

http://www.answers.com/topic/special-education-current-trends