Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Early Intervention Services, Special Education, Uncategorized

Changing Special Education

In spite of what many younger educators and parents of children with disabilities may think, special education has formally existed since post the World Wars era. Limb loss and head injury were the initial issues addressed by hospitals and adult services. Schools for the deaf and blind have existed since the 1800s. The first school for the deaf in the United States was founded in 1817 in Hartford, Connecticut. The first school for the blind was the Perkins School for the Blind, founded in 1829 in Massachusetts. Major access by a wider range of children with disabilities occurred in the mid-1900s, with public and private schools available within some communities and institutional settings. By 1960, special schools were the main strategy to provide educational services, particularly for students with significant disabilities.

In the 1970s, several states had begun to enact laws mandating educational services to all students with disabilities, 5-18 years of age. By the mid-1970s, some states had enacted requirements, three to 21 years of age but many of these students were still served in separate classrooms or special schools. Through the 1970s, some states had begun to provide classes in general education settings, with services provided within these settings, including occupational, physical, and speech therapy.

The Education for Handicapped Children Act was a Federal law passed in 1975 and required states to provide special education to all children 5 to 18 years of age nationwide through assessments of their needs and the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). The IEP detailed individual education interventions and therapies for each student with a wide range of disabilities.

In 1990, the law was reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. After 1990, multiple reauthorizations have been enacted by Congress. These authorized many student changes to support children with disabilities and their families, including preschool special education services. In 1986, Part H, now Part C, was enacted, authorizing services for children from birth to 3 and provided funding to states to develop programs.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Early Intervention Services, Special Education

Washington Post and Rights of Students with Disabilities: My field has moved back, not forward.

To say I was let down would be an exaggeration. I waited with great hopes for the Panel Discussion on the current chaotic state of the education of students with disabilities and the lack of implementation of the requirements of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

The panel discussants were eloquent, polished in their presentations, and vibrant. They included the secretary of the federal Department of Education, the Ford Foundation program officer for disability rights, and the CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. The moderator did not ask challenging questions but encouraged the presenters on the theme of their professional expertise. 

The title “Disability Rights in U. S. Schools” was only lightly touched on but on the broadest subject of access throughout life and work settings. The major themes included the shortage of teachers, professional development, salary, working conditions, and respect for the profession, all very critical issues in teacher retention. 

The rights of students with disabilities, over 15% of the public school student population, to implementation of their IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) in the appropriate educational setting were not mentioned. For some students, this would be in an inclusive classroom, while for others, special settings may be appropriate for the implementation of their IEP. The role of parents and their rights in the special education process were not mentioned. At the state and local level, where special education happens, the costs of special education are an explosive issue for education budgets, frequently a target for advocates of non-disabled students. Federal funding covers less than 10% of the costs, depending on the wealth of the state and local system. 

Key to a discussion of the rights of students with disabilities is the recognition of the specific legal and procedural requirements, in addition to the push for inclusive educational environments, and teacher training and compensation.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Special Education

Disability vs Illiteracy

With the increasing population of non-English speaking immigrants to the United States, educators are challenged to distinguish students with an identifiable disability from children who have not had access to education and were not literate in their native language. Frequently, access to interpreters for each spoken language is limited and confounds the ability of teachers to identify the educational needs of students and make referrals for special education. 

English learners (ELs) are a growing part of the K–12 student population. Between the 2009–10 and 2014–15 school years, the percentage of EL students increased in more than half of the states, with increases of an amazing amount of over 40 percent in five states. There are more than 4.8 million Els in the country with most of them participating in language instruction. The majority of Els are Hispanic or Latino, while only one-quarter of all students were Hispanic or Latino.  Asians account for only 5 percent of students but represent 11 percent of Els.  

Overall, the impact on subgroup populations varies. While 10 percent of all students were Els, a similar percentage of students with disabilities were ELs (9.9 percent). In comparison, ELs represented 14 percent of all homeless children enrolled in public school, 15 percent of students served by either Public Title I Schoolwide Programs or Targeted Assistance School Programs, and 39 percent of eligible migrant children who resided in the state.

ELs with disabilities were more likely to be classified as having a specific learning disability, or speech or language impairment.  Nearly 50% of these students were identified as having a learning disability.  In addition, 21% of ELs were identified as having a speech or language impairment.  

Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states must annually assess the English language proficiency of ELs, provide reasonable accommodations for them on state assessments, and develop new accountability systems that include long-term goals and measures of progress for ELs. While Spanish was the most common language spoken by ELs at home in 2014–15, in some states there was more variation in the home language. The need to support less commonly spoken languages could also be different across school districts.

Illiteracy becomes a disability only if it is the result of an identifiable physical or mental impairment, meaning loss of vision, hearing, or mental retardation. It is important to be able to distinguish if a student’s lack of learning is due to lack of access to education or to an identifiable disability.  In addition, the need to make this determination in the child’s native language is an important component of diagnosis. 

Sources:

https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index.html

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Special Education

History of IDEA (Part 2)

Legislation on behalf of students with disabilities did not just happen.  My mother was a teacher in Rochester, New York, in 1939.  She described how elementary schools addressed the needs of these students – they didn’t specifically individualize instruction.  The students were in the regular class and the teacher taught the class, not differentiating specific instructional plans but instead teaching to where the students functioned academically.

Specific legislation was the result of a long process involving complex and interwoven historical events.  Special education formally began in the United States in 1823 with the establishment of a state school in Kentucky for people who were deaf.  The earliest federal roles from the 1820s to the 1870s targeted the mentally ill, the blind, and the deaf.  After World Wars I and II, there was a focus on vocational rehabilitation and supportive aid for returning disabled veterans.  Additional important legislation included The Social Security Act enacted in 1935 and established a system of Federal old-age benefits, as well as enabling several States to make provisions for blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and unemployment compensation. The Federal government sought to improve elementary and secondary education programs for reasons ranging from alleviating poverty to stimulating the domestic economy to increasing the performance of American students in comparison to those in other industrialized nations.

With the launch of Sputnik 1 by the Russians in 1957, the US gained an inspired interest in improving American education.  The omnibus National Defense Education Act of 1958 approved $887 million spread across primary, secondary, vocational, and higher education programs with an emphasis on identifying students gifted in science, mathematics, and foreign languages. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal government, with the support and advocacy of family associations, such as The ARC, began to develop and validate practices for children with disabilities and their families.  

There are numerous illustrations of key early Federal legislation that supported improved programs and services, including:

  • Training of Personnel Act of 1959 (PL86-1580
  • Captioned Films Acts of 1958 (PL87-715)
  • Teachers of the Deaf Act of 1961 (PL 87-276)
Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, COVID, Special Education

Knowing the Impact of Learning Loss

            March 14, 2020, ushered in an unanticipated and fundamental change in the delivery of services for children with disabilities, upending the timely identification, assessment, evaluation, and delivery of services.  While education for all children changed, the pandemic required a unique interpretation of services for children with disabilities and a cataclysmic revisioning of the meaning of timely services and the where and location for the delivery of services.  Timelines and delivery modes were revamped, striving to revision a mode of virtual and hybrid services in a constrained model of what are early intervention and special education services consistent with federal and state laws and regulations. Initially, it was thought that federal waivers would be available. Instead, broad guidance was provided, leaving states with the responsibility to devise a broad range of substitute strategies for identification of eligible children and the delivering of services to implement diverse and individualized educational programs. 

            The myriad of issues and initial service solutions was confusing, leaving many families with the complete cessation of services and others with a near perversion of therapeutic strategies designed to address the needs of the more severely disabled.  Social and income inequities surfaced immediately with many families lacking access to internet and without the necessary technologies to participate in any form of virtual learning or services. Issues of childcare and parents as teachers have plagued the implementation of the varied models of services.  States floundered in the specific guidance needed by local systems and funding lagged to assist in modification of classrooms, delivery models, and the need to address transportation.  Solutions were as diverse as there are local systems and funding options.  

Initially many educators and parents relied on the guidance that children would return to school in the fall of 2020.  Young children and students with disabilities face significant education challenges as the beginning of school in the fall approaches. Around the country, school districts are grappling with the format and pace of programming while at the same time accommodating the learning needs of many children.  The physical obstacles include transportation of children while observing social distancing and variations in hybrid models of in-school and virtual learning.          

Many young children and students with disabilities may not be willing to tolerate masks, particularly when riding for long periods of time on a bus or when attempting to communicate if dependent on sign language or communication supports.  Variability in routines will challenge children if the schedules are intermittent or are unexpectedly changed due to recurrent school closures for student or teacher illness.     

Some children with IFSPs and IEPs that have not been implemented during the quarantine period may be eligible for extended school year, as well as compensatory services.  Team meetings, with parent participation, will evaluate the current levels of student functioning within the curriculum and determine any revisions that will assist the child to be successful. Additional educational and therapeutic services may be necessary to support the child with regressions during distance learning.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, COVID, Special Education, Uncategorized

The Unexpected Benefits of Remote Learning for Neurodivergent Students | EdSurge News

Learning disruptions have been an unfortunate but all-too-frequent sight during the pandemic. But not every student felt those effects evenly as …
— Read on www.edsurge.com/news/2021-08-04-the-unexpected-benefits-of-remote-learning-for-neurodivergent-students

This story reminds us of the importance of individualized compensation for loss learning since March 20, 2020. Every IEP needs to be reviewed in a meeting with appropriate educators and professionals able to determine the services and frequency needed to provide an opportunity to regain prior skills and learning.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, Early Intervention Services, Special Education, Topic of the Day, Uncategorized

Changes in Attitude and Language

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

‘I am not ashamed’: Disability advocates, experts implore you to stop saying ‘special needs’

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2021/06/11/disabled-not-special-needs-experts-explain-why-never-use-term/7591024002/

Having worked in the fields of early intervention services and special education for many decades, this story has a tired theme but one that may resonant with younger parents and professionals. My first teaching job was in 1971. I was teaching a class of “multiply handicapped” students in a school for the severely mentally retarded and educable children.

In 1975 the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) a comprehensive federal law known as Public Law 94-142, was enacted. It required public schools to provide a free appropriate education for all children with disabilities, ages 3 to 21. When the law was reauthorized in 1990 it was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Subsequently the terms of “retarded” and physical handicaps were discarded and collapsed to the disabled.

During this time, the concept of “special needs” crept into the increasingly benign language and included those with mental health, cognitive impairments, physical disabilities, and increasingly, autism. Many parents described their children as having unique learning needs or accommodations.

Then, while I was teaching graduate students, the term of humanity first was the preferred description. Students with disabilities or students with learning challenges, emphazing that all children were children and the accompanying descriptions were secondary coniderations.

This article emphasizes the new movement with an emphasis on identify first, hence the return of the disabled student, child, or adult. It appears to be in keeping with the societal movement toward identifyinng differences as primary, underemphasizing our membership in humanity and our wholeness.

Given my longevity in this field, I am not comfortable returning to a term that can be used as a pejorative description. It has taken many years for the disabled to achieve parity with the able-bodied. When we live in a country with a President who used disability mannerisms as a political tool and a poor attempt at humor, we need to be reminded that we are all people with unique needs.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, COVID, Uncategorized

Severely Disabled Children and the Need for Home-Based Services

www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/health/nursing-shortage-disabled-children.html

Another of the less apparent impact of COVID is the personal toll the lack of health professionals has meant for families with severely disabled children. It took years for the health system to understand the need for home-based nursing and the benefits for the family and the savings in health care dollars. Now….so few health professionals are available and families are struggling. No one can walk on their path, experiencing the pain and exhaustion of keeping a child alive, 24 /7.

Carol Ann Heath, Ed.D. Children with Disabilities, COVID, Special Education

Detroit’s Covid vaccination queue is one of first to include people with ADHD, other disabilities

Detroit is now giving Covid-19 vaccinations to people with ADHD, autism, vision or hearing impairments, and other intellectual and developmental disabilities.
— Read on www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/detroit-s-covid-vaccination-queue-one-first-include-people-adhd-n1258399

An important decision to improve access for those individuals having problems with mask wearing and social distancing.