Juggling Education: Special and Otherwise

Special education in school is seemingly becoming something of a misnomer. Or maybe that term can relate to the idea of general education. Since the idea of inclusion, many students with diagnosed (and undiagnosed) learning and emotional disabilities are being educated in the regular classroom. This means that a single teacher in a single classroom can have many students with special needs, and that teacher must do the best he/she can to meet those needs. So where is the line drawn between the two types of education? If one taught “special education,” then would he/she be holding back the other students? If one taught with “general education” in mind, would he/she be excluding those with special needs? The line has been significantly blurred and that creates confusion on where one begins and the other ends. So, where are we with special education?

Until 1800 or so, people with disabilities had a long and difficult road on which to travel. In fact, if a school felt that it was too difficult, or that a student’s mere presence stole too much of the teacher’s attention, that child with a disability could be dismissed from the school: “…But the presence in a class of one or two mentally or morally defective children so absorbs the energies of the teacher and makes so imperative a claim upon her attention that she cannot under these circumstances properly instruct the number commonly enrolled in a class.” (Smith, 2002). Depending on the severity of the disability, getting a proper and equal education was as difficult as attempting to be “normal” and fit into the mainstream of society. Special classes and schools became somewhat prevalent in the early part of the twentieth century, but not until The Rehabilitation Act, specifically section 504, in 1973, did things really get going. Section 504 basically dealt with the issue of segregation in schools and told institutions that received federal funding that they could not discriminate against individuals that were “otherwise qualified” to be in the classroom (Salend, 2008). This opened the door for more talk on equality in education for more than just racial and ethnic minorities.

Through acts and amendments aimed at requiring schools to educate students with disabilities, and encouraging them with financial incentives, students with disabilities have a better chance than ever before to become working and productive members of society. While section 504 substantially helped to fix the issues of segregation and discrimination in schools, it really wasn’t until the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (a.k.a.-law 94-142), which mainly sought to address the issues of educating individuals with disabilities, and not just non-white individuals. This is where the term “free and appropriate education” comes from (Salend).

Now that we have what seems to be free and appropriate education for all students, where is the U.S. regarding special education since 1975? Well, there have been more acts and amendments to acts for the education of students with disabilities and it continues to be a hot topic in education all over America. As Smith states in his article dealing with the history of special education, it was not only common, but legal to exclude children with disabilities from the classroom (Smith). Given that fact, America has come quite far in this area of education.

Explicit in law 94-142 is the idea of the least restrictive environment, and as a whole, we’ve come to believe that the least restrictive environment for most children with disabilities is in the general education classroom (Smith). So what is the big deal? If everything is all better then, why is this still such a hot topic? Well, the debate as to whether the environment is least restrictive or not, is not a closed debate. Some feel that special education kids are getting lumped into these classes without the special attention they require (Zavatto, et al. 2007). So now, America has this policy of inclusion, and the students with special needs are mixed in the classrooms, but what if they are not getting the additional help they need? One may ask why they would have been included in the first place. Zavatto believes that money, and not necessarily the philanthropic desire to include students with disabilities, is the issue. This is also what has been tossed about by teachers all over New York City. This allows for the idea that it is the least restrictive environment for the schools, and not for the students- either the students with disabilities nor the general education students. Proof of this, however, may prove difficult to hold.

All of this adds to the blurred lines in special education. Is it least restrictive or not? Is the teacher supposed to teach with the students with disabilities in mind, or teach to the general education students? Is there a difference? Obviously, there are aspects of this that can benefit all individuals- generally “able” students can gain insight and learn patience in dealing with others with special needs, and special needs students can gain confidence and self-esteem from not being excluded based on something they cannot control. However, trying to teach a class with a student who has ADHD, one who has emotional disorders, one who has MMR, one in a wheel chair, and all of the other students at the same time is not as easy as it sounds…and it does not sound easy.

America has definitely made progress in special education, but what we have now is a storm that gets foggier by the minute. We have included these kids so much that we have excluded their special needs. Should they be sent away to be in different classrooms? Not so fast, but they should be getting the help they deserve in those general education classrooms, and that means more funding for more teachers to be in those classrooms. If some in the industry are right, and money is an issue, then this may prove difficult to secure. America is still foggy in the special education realm. Until we can secure some trained individuals who can be prepared to teach in such an environment, an environment that is as real as the kids themselves, then there will be students in the classrooms that will get shortchanged. The question of which of those students will be left behind, may just be answered by good of a juggler the teacher is.

Smith, J.D. (2001). Special education in the United States: Legal history. International

Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, p14847-14851.

Zavatto, L., Bert, G., Curtis, J., Wells, A., Kelly, D., Hampson, J., Crawford, S.A. (2007).

Is the implementation of the “least-restrictive environment” equitable for all

students? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. v78, is. 9, p10.

Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: effective and reflective practices (6^th

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Private versus Public: Democracy and Rhetoric

Access to private education remains, in minds of many, the gold standard of education--the choice all parents aspire to. This argument is a reasonable one, as common knowledge holds that the public schools have more or less failed both students and parents. Education is, like most things, a commodity--you get what you pay for. But is this really true? Have we as a country given up on our public schools? As a student reared in the public school system, I know I internalized this myth; when I first attended a private college, part of a freshman class made up of a large number of students from private schools, I was insecure, assuming that, skill-wise, I would not be able to compete with my "better educated" peers. And yet, I was fine. Despite this, I feel guilty pains of hope when students tell me they are transferring to a private school. I often wonder what is best for my students, for all students.
I pose these questions not to denigrate private education, or as an attempt to justify my experiences and career choice, but rather as a way to begin to think about the way we, as a country, view access to education at large. Knowing that, despite my own experience, if given the opportunity I am sure I would sent my own child to a private school, makes wonder where the disconnect lies and what the implications are for all children. As the veritable founder of American educational thought Dewey said in 1899, "[w]hat the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy" (Good, 1999, p. 384). Access to free, quality public education has long under-pinned the ideals of our political system. Yet as charter schools and "choice" now are at the fore-front of our public debate around education, are we as a nation willing to give up on a privilege, or right, still denied children around the world?
An exploration of these issues must begin with our conception of the public school system's current failure of students. Since the eighties, the nation has been engaged in a debate as to the actual performance of American public schools. Much of this debate was sparked by American students' scores on tests in comparison with students from other countries (Good, 1999). As a result of this reality, and the well-known failure of public education for poor and minority students, politicians have moved to provide students and parents with more options, from vouchers to charter schools, and to further legislate all public schools, particularly through No Child Left Behind. Yet while many of these changes have received public and institutional support, the public perception of "their own" public schools is not so bleak--"in various polls citizens have expressed confidence in the quality of public schools, especially in their local schools--the ones they know the most about (Good, 1999, p. 385). In fact, a Gallup Poll indicated that "'the low grades given the nation's public schools are primarily media-induced. Whereas people learn first hand about their children's schools, they learn about the nation's school primarily from the media'" (Good, 1999, p. 385). Interestingly, the need for the "privatization of education", from charter schools to corporate sponsorships to funding through vending machines (Seaton, et. al), is facilitated by corporate media reporting.
The reality is, as in all things in education, more slippery. In 2006, the results were made public of a "large-scale government-financed study [... that] compared fourth- and eighth-grade math scores of more than 340,000 students in 13,000 regular, charter and private schools on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress" (Schemo, 2006, para. 2). The researchers themselves were surprised to find that the sample "showed public schools to be outperforming private schools in mathematics achievement after student background factors were considered" (Lubienski, et. al, 2008, p. 689). Historically, private schools had out-performed public schools on national assessment, yet the study used "advanced statistical techniques to adjust for the effects of income, school and home circumstances", finding that "while the raw scores of fourth graders in Roman Catholic schools, for example were 14.3 points higher than those in public schools, when adjustments were made for students backgrounds, those in Catholic schools scored 3.4 points lower than those in public schools" (Schemo, 2006, para. 4). While I wonder about, and to some degree fear, these "adjustments for student backgrounds", it appears that, when standardized tests are more standardized, popular conceptions about the effectiveness of public schools are confronted.
In fact, the study also found that charter schools "did significantly worse than public schools" (Schemo, 2006, para. 6). As charter schools are privately run but publicly financed, the study demands a reexamination of popular beliefs about public and private education, and the ways this discourse is presented politically. Interestingly, the above-mentioned study was controversial not only in its findings, but also in its delivery. Days after the study was released, Democratic aides and public education advocates accused the Bush administration of politicizing the government financed report. Apparently the report, which counters justifications for the administration's push for privatization, was released, without contacting media on a Friday afternoon, when few people are consuming news. Advocates and reporters contend that the move was orchestrated and political, an attempt to bury reports that do not agree with the administration's goals (Sanchez, 2006). The divided, and often shifting, political winds serve only to make the "right" choice for students and parents more confusing.
Parents choose, rightly so, private schools for a variety of reasons; as teachers we know that test scores are only a part of the equation. But as a nation, we should examine the implications of our beliefs in regards to public versus private education, especially when the debate lies at the heart of our founding ideals. As Teaching Fellows, this debate is particularly relevant, for as Seaton et. al. notes, "much of the privatization debate is about the education of economically disadvantage minority students" (2007, p. 164). In fact, "often overlooked in discussions of privatization of education are explicit discussions of the educational needs of minority urban communities. This is ironic [...as o]ften marketed as an alternative to failing urban public schools, charter schools have emerged primarily as a minority phenomenon" (Seaton et. al, 2007, p. 164). In fact, "some researchers have pointed out that the clustering of minorities in charter schools serves to further isolate an already socially, economically, racially isolated population" (Seaton et. al, 2007, p. 164). At this point, further examination of the above-mentioned "adjustments for student backgrounds" is needed. Sanchez tells us that these adjustments were based upon racial, income-level, and free-school lunch figures (2006). Recognizing that these are factors for adjustment implies our nation's failure of a large segment of it's population. We must admit that the rhetoric behind the political debates on public schools is in reality a reflection of our cynicism about true equality. This type of honest reflection is the best way to begin to re-imagine Dewey's call for an understanding of the relationship between public education and democracy.

References
Good, T.L. (1999). The purpose of schooling in America. The Elementary School Journal,
99(5), pp. 383-389.
Lubienski, C., Crane, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2008). What do we know about school
effectiveness? Academic gains in public and private schools. Phi Delta Kappan, May, pp.
689-695.
Sanchez, C. (2006, July, 26). Public vs. private school report spurs controversy. National
Public Radio. Audio retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=5584516.
Schemo, D. J. (2006, January, 28). Public-School students score well in math in large-scale
government study. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2006/01/28/education/28tests.html.
Seaton, G., Dell'Angelo, T., Spencer, M. B., & Youngblood, J. (2007). Moving beyond the
dichotomy: meeting the needs of urban students through contextually-relevant education
practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring, pp. 163-183.