SpedPro

CEC names Ramirez

By JohnL on Jun. 30, 2006.

The Council for Exceptional Children announced the appointment of Bruce Ramirez as its executive director Friday 30 June 2006. The press release is here.

Jay Matthews factor

By JohnL on Jun. 28, 2006.

A column by Jay Matthews, who is an education reporter for the Washington Post, has drawn attention, at least in part because it challenges the newly popular and (borrowing terminology from a colleague or Mr. Matthews, here) conventional wisdom that boys are in crisis.

Mr. Matthews went beyond the overblown reporting on this topic and dug into an extensive analysis by Sara Mead of Education Sector. Education Sector is an non-profit, non-partisan think tank examining issues in education, about which I shall write more in another post. For now, I address some of the content Mr. Matthews draws from Ms. Mead’s report called “The Truth About Boys and Girls.”

Although Mr. Matthews’ column and the report on which he bases it contain many other concerns, one part of the report that Mr. Matthews quotes refers to the preponderance of boys with “learning disabilities” (LD, a term which Mr. Matthews—he is not alone in this error—mistakenly equates with general special educational needs). In his quote, he omits a phrase from the original that I have indicated with underlining:

In addition to disadvantaged and minority boys, there are also reasons to be concerned about the substantial percentage of boys who have been diagnosed with disabilities. Boys make up two-thirds of students in special education—including 80 percent of those diagnosed with emotional disturbances or autism—and boys are two and a half times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The number of boys diagnosed with disabilities or ADHD has exploded in the past 30 years, presenting a challenge for schools and causing concern for parents. But the reasons for this growth are complicated, a mix of educational, social, and biological factors. Evidence suggests that school and family factors—such as poor reading instruction, increased awareness of and testing for disabilities, or over-diagnosis—may play a role in the increased rates of boys diagnosed with learning disabilities or emotional disturbance. But boys also have a higher incidence of organic disabilities, such as autism and orthopedic impairments, for which scientists don’t currently have a completely satisfactory explanation. Further, while girls are less likely than boys to be diagnosed with most disabilities, the number of girls with disabilities has also grown rapidly in recent decades, meaning that this is not just a boy issue.

Although Mr. Matthews makes no more of the disability issue in his column, he recounts the overarching argument of the report, which is that the “boy crises” is overblown. It may be. That there are more boys in special education than one would expect based on population statistics is hard to dispute. And, as Mr. Matthews notes, the report cites alternative reasons for the discrepancy. What Mr. Matthews’ column omits is a later section in which the report calls for further funding of research about gender differences among students with disabilities. Here is that later call for support of studies of disabilities:

Finally, policymakers should support and fund more research about differences in boys’ and girls’ achievement, brain development, and the culture of schools to help teachers and parents better understand why boys’ achievement is not rising as fast as that of girls. Such research should include studies that use proper methodological and analytic tools to look into the cause of gender achievement gaps, as well as experimental evaluations of different approaches that seek to close them. To support research, policymakers should make sure that data systems are collecting quality information about boys’ and girls’ school experiences and academic achievement and men’s and women’s educational attainment and workforce outcomes. In addition, policymakers should fund research on some of the specific problems—learning disabilities, autism, and disciplinary or emotional problems—that disproportionately affect boys. [Emphasis added by JohnL]

This is a critical concern for special education professionals. I hope that Mr. Matthews’ discussion of this report will draw attention to the argument favoring funding of research. To be sure, we need to obtain full-funding (even if that only means 40% of the excess costs of providing special education services, a level that the US Congress has not seen fit to provide in the 30 years since it pledged to provide such funding). We also need focused funding for research about the features of disability that might be amenable to change.

Given adequate special educational services, many students with disabilities (including those with Learning Disabilities, Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Mental Retardation, and even Austism) can, acquire skills and knowledge that will permit them to be contributing members of our society. To the extent that they acquire those skills and therefore contribute to the fabric of society and the tax roles, their competence is a double win for us. The more individuals with disabilities can contribute to society in their adult years, the fewer dollars they will require from society for support during those same years.

As a society, we need an investement in these individuals. It’s not just the humane thing to do, it’s the smart thing.

Author
John Wills Lloyd, Ph.D.
University of Virginia

Call Time Out on FC

By JohnL on Jun. 21, 2006.

We the undersigned register our dismay about Time magazine’s support of Facilitated Communication in the 10 May 2006 article entitled “‘Helping’ Autistic People to Speak” and 15 May issue entitled “Inside the Autistic Mind” by Claudia Wallis. Time might as well have endorsed cold fusion or phlogiston as give Facilitated Communication a favorable review.

Facilitated Communication has been repeatedly debunked with well-controlled experiments. In these studies individuals with autism and their non-disabled facilitators are each shown a different picture. When people with autism are asked to write the name of the pictures they see, they more frequently name the one shown to the facilitator than the one they see—that is, it is the facilitator who is communicating, not the individuals with autism. This and related studies have been repeated many times, with consistent results (see reviews listed at the end of this note).

In contrast, almost all of the studies claiming positive effects of Facilitated Communincation have relied on anecdotal evidence and have been conducted by promoters of the technique. Despite the devastating evidence against it, desperate parents and some well-intentioned professionals continue to endorse the practice. This is tragic because there are scientifically validated ways to teach individuals with autism to communicate independently. Employing unvalidated procedures in hopes of miraculous results simply delays the employment of methods that are known to produce beneficial, if not miraculous outcomes.

We are glad that Time provided coverage to the substantial problems of individuals with autism and their families. Autism is a topic worthy of greater public understanding. We believe, however, that Time did the public a disservice by giving sympathetic coverage to Facilitated Communication.

We understand the power of anecdotes and their utility in journalism, but in our view journalists have a duty to use anecdotes carefully. Ms. Wallis and Time acted irresponsibly by simply remarking that Facilitated Communication is “controversial” and disregarding the research about it. We urge Time to revisit the topic of Facilitated Communication, employing a scientifically grounded reporter who will investigate the facts thoroughly and compare Facilitated Communication to its scientifically validated alternatives. Then Time will be able to publish a report that serves the public.

Admin note: To indicate your support for this statement or to see a list of co-signers, please click comments at the top of the entry (prior registration required; once registered, click the link labeled “comment” and scroll to the bottom of the statement). In addition to your comment, please give your full name and affiliation.

Authors

Sources

Cummins, R. A., & Prior, M. P. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 228-241.

Green, G. (1992, October). Facilitated communication: Scientific and ethical issues. Paper presented at the E. K. Shriver Center University affiliated Program Service-Related Research Colloquium Series, Waltham, MA.

Green, G. (1994). The quality of the evidence. In H. C. Shane, (Ed.) Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon (pp. 15-226). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing.

Hudson, A. (1995). Disability and facilitated communication: A critique. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical psychology, (Vol. 17; pp. 59-83). New York: Plenum Press.

Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscienscience, and and antiscience. American Psychologist, 50, 750-765.

Mostert, M. (2001). Faciliitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 287-313.

Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1995). Facilitated communication and children with disabilities: An enigma in search of a perspectivetive. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1-16.

Exclusion forewarning

By JohnL on Jun. 19, 2006.

Somebody should have some ’splainin’ to do here.

Scores of the new, small high schools are shutting out special education students - a controversial practice federal authorities are now examining.

The boutique schools, highly touted by Mayor Bloomberg, are not required to enroll special education students during the school’s first two years. And few are equipped for teens with wheelchairs, severely limiting the students’ enrollment choices.

Ashley Anderson, an eighth-grader with cerebral palsy, said she was stunned when she flipped through the city’s high school directory last fall and discovered that page after page blared “no accessibility” for wheelchairs.

“It was like waking up on Christmas morning and there weren’t any toys,” the 14-year-old said.

According to this story entitled “Special Ed pupils in limbo” by Kathleen Lucadamo of the New York (NY, US) Daily News, students with disabilities are being excluded from special small high schools in the city. Putatively, the exclusion rule allows these not-so-special schools to ramp up to providing services; basically, it’s to save money.

Also, consider this behavior by these schools the next time you hear someone advocate for charter schools. As Liz Ditz has noted repeatedly, there’s a lot of problems with charters (see this list of her posts).

Link to Ms. Lucadamo’s story.

Personnel prep money losses

By jktramil on Jun. 15, 2006.

Federal support for preparation of personnel to provide special education and related services to students with disabilities was initiated in 1958, when P.L. 85-926 authorized use of discretionary funds for preparing personnel to provide leadership in mental retardation. From that time forward, the federal government has attempted to play a catalytic role in assisting colleges, universities, states, and local education agencies to develop an infrastructure for personnel development in special education. These efforts have focused on ensuring a sufficient quantity of special education and related services personnel; increasing the quality of personnel preparation; and enhancing the capacity of states and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to prepare personnel for special education and related services (Campeau, Appleby, & Stoddart, 1987).

Using information from the sources cited below, I traced the actual and inflation-adjusted appropriations for personnel preparation from 1970 through 2005. (The 1977 appropriation could not be located.) I used NASA’s inflation calculator to calculate the impact of inflation used in both analyses.

As shown in the accompanying charts, the actual appropriation for personnel preparation increased over the past two-and-a-half decades. However, when adjusted for inflation, the costs of goods and services has increased over time, and the purchasing power of the appropriations has decreased. To compute the inflation-adjusted costs of goods and services for each year, I used 1970 as the index year and entered the actual appropriation for each comparison year into the inflation calculator. Chart 1 shows that, when adjusted for inflation, the increase in costs of goods and services far outpaces the growth in actual appropriations.

Conversely, Chart 2 shows the actual appropriations per year and the decreasing purchasing power of that year’s appropriation (with inflation), in comparison to 1970. To compute the inflation-adjusted purchasing power, each year after 1970 was treated as the index year, and the purchasing power of the appropriation for the index year was compared to the purchasing power of the 1970 appropriation. This analysis simply shows the flip-side of the first one, but either way one considers it, the costs of preparing students for careers in special education has risen faster than the funding of programs to prepare them for those careers.

Sources:

Source of information regarding appropriations for personnel preparation for the years 1970 – 1974: Burke, P. J., & Saettler, H. (1976). The Division of Personnel Preparation: How funding priorities are established and a personal assessment of the impact of P.L. 94-142. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 11(4), 361-365.

Source of information regarding appropriations for personnel preparation for the years 1974 – 1985: Campeau, P. L., Appleby, J. A., & Stoddart, S. C. (1987). Evaluation of discretionary programs under the Education of the Handicapped Act: Personnel Preparation Program. Final goal evaluation report and technical appendices (Contract No. 300-85-0143). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.

Source of information regarding appropriations for personnel preparation for the years 1990-2004: Directories of Grants and Contracts funded by OSEP, National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) and ERIC/OSEP.

Sources for information regarding appropriations for the years 1986-1990: USDE- OSERS, Program Funded Activities.

Source of information regarding appropriations for personnel preparation for the years 2000 through 2004: http://www.ed.gov/programs/osepprep/funding.html

Source of information and Consumer Price Index calculator used to show relative purchasing power and relationship of actual appropriations to appropriations adjusted for inflation for the years 1970 - 2004: http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/inflateCPI.html

Author:
Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Special Education
University of South Florida

New NASDSE resources

By JohnL on Jun. 15, 2006.

Project Forum, a federally funded effort by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, has announced the publication of two new documents. Here are the descriptions from Project Forum with links to the PDFs of the documents.

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2: A Synthesis of Three NLTS2 Reports on Going to School, Youth Achievements and Services and Supports

This In-Brief Policy Analysis synthesizes three reports from the NLTS2. It describes students with disabilities’ school and classroom contexts, patterns of course taking, characteristics of classroom instruction; highlights student outcomes related to school programs and experiences and parent expectations; and discusses the importance and challenges of providing services and supports for youth with disabilities. A discussion of policy implications and next steps for future analyses of NLTS2 is given.

Standards-Based IEPs: Implementation in Selected States

This In-Depth Policy Analysis builds on previous Project Forum work, defines “standards-based IEPs and describes implementation in 18 states. The data collected confirmed the existence of significant policy changes in states and extensive investments in professional development. This document is an analysis of the most recent developments in some states that are implementing standards-based IEPs. It is written to further the recognition of this evolving movement and to stimulate additional sharing and conversation among states.

NYC special education

By JohnL on Jun. 8, 2006.

WNYC’s Beth Fertig, familiar to listeners to National Public Radio news shows, has had a series of stories about special education in New York City (NY, US). The first two were about graduation and the third was about ethnicity. I’ve written entries about the first and third stories on sibling blogs.

DC costs

By JohnL on Jun. 6, 2006.

The Washington (DC, US) local education agency (LEA) spent $118 million in 2005 on tuition for out-of-district placements for students with disabilities, according to an article by Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes of the Washington Post. Furthermore, the LEA has underestimated tuition cost repeatedly, transferred funds from other budget lines to cover the costs, does not have a trustworthy records system about students in special education, and does not maintain contracts with private providers of special education services.

D.C. school officials have promised repeatedly over the past decade to improve and expand public school programs for disabled students, which would cut the number of children placed in the expensive private facilities. But many administrators and teachers throughout the system say they fear that the spending trends are becoming self-perpetuating: As the tuition payments grow, there is less and less money to hire the teachers, therapists, social workers and other specialists needed to make the public programs more acceptable to parents and hearing officers hired by the school system.

That pattern has created some glaring inefficiencies in spending. At Lafayette Elementary School in Northwest Washington, for example, Principal Gail Lynn Main said 12 to 15 students have been sent to private academies over the past three years since she lost one of her two special education teachers during systemwide budget cuts and could no longer meet the students’ needs. Based on the average tuition bill, the school system could have avoided spending $600,000 to $750,000 a year if it had given her the $42,000 she needed to hire the extra teacher.

The coverage by Mr. Keating and Mr. Haynes is extensive (~2800 words) but well worth reading. Link to the article. Also, note that the Post provides connections to blogs that have commented on the story; some of those are quite intriguing:

• EduWonk: “WaPo’s Keating and Haynes turn in one of the paper’s periodic exposés on the scandal that passes for special education in Washington, D.C. More data on the kinds of students served, rather than just their cursory demographic overview buried toward the end of the story would be helpful but the article does a great job making clear the contours and severity of the problem….”
• DCEduBlog: “Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes of the Washington Post have a great, in-depth look at how DCPS manages (or, more truthfully, doesn’t manage) its special education program. From it, you will get a good sense of just exactly why the District’s school system is so dysfuntional.”
• Cato-at-Liberty: “School choice opponents love to declare that ‘unlike private schools, public schools have to teach everyone.’ Well it turns out that that’s not really true. As Dan Keating and V. Dion Haynes expose in today’s Washington Post, when kids’ disabilities get too tough, the D.C. Public Schools turn to private institutions, where disabled students can finally get the specialized attention they need.”
• ToThePeople: “The US mandate to fund “appropriate” education for disabled students ironically has the impact of leaving the majority of students in classrooms that can’t afford chalk and erasers.”
• WhyIHateDC: “The Washington Post had a front-page, above the fold story on DC’s out-of-control spending on special education. (Fucking ‘tards. Give ‘em an inch and they take a mile!)”

Racial disparities

By JohnL on Jun. 2, 2006.

The Education Department of the state of New Jersey (US) found that the Lakewood local education agency (LEA) discriminated against African-American and Hispanic-American students its preschool special education program, according to stories by Richard Quinn in the and Angela Delli Santi in Newsday. Unlike much of the discussion regarding discrimination in special education, where the issue is African-American and Hispanic-American children being mistakenly identified as having disabilities, this story is about those students not getting equal treatment.

Here is a snippet from Ms. Santi’s story:

In a 31-page report issued last week but publicized by the ACLU Wednesday, Education Department officials cited examples of students with similar disabilities, but different treatment plans. Besides giving preferential treatment to whites for out-of-district services, disabled white preschoolers also were more likely to be offered full-day, rather than half-day, special education classes, the report found.

Link to Ms. Santi’s story and a link to Mr. Quinn’s more extensive coverage.