SpedPro

Popped myth

By JohnL on May. 9, 2007.

The US National Center on Educational Statistics, a part of the Institute for Education Sciences, issued a report about special education. In the report, billed as an “issue brief” and published in March of 2007, Emily W. Holt, Daniel J. McGrath, and William L. Herring describe the results of a study based on the cohort of children who started kindergarten in 1998 and followed in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies (ECLS-K). It’s worth reading, in part because it pops a common myth about special education.

This Issue Brief reports the timing of entry into special education and the number of grades in which students receive special education across the primary grades. About 12 percent of students receive special education in at least one of the grades: kindergarten, first, and third grade, including 16 percent of boys, 8 percent of girls, 18 percent of poor children, and 10 percent of nonpoor children. One in three students who receive special education in early grades, first receive special education in kindergarten. Half of those who begin special education in kindergarten are no longer receiving special education by third grade. In addition to students’ gender and poverty status, results are presented separately for other student and school characteristics, including race/ethnicity and school control, urbanicity, region, and poverty concentration. Data for this brief come from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K).

There’s lots to this report (consider the disproportional representation of poor children, for example), but one of the findings of which I want to make note that 33% of those who were identified as kindergartners did not receive special education in 1st or 3rd grades and an additional 16% received special education in first but not in 3rd grade. These data do not square with the popular notion that a child who is found eligible for special education will continue in special education for her or his entire school career. Here are three examples of the distribution of that view:

• David Gordon, superintendent of schools in Sacramento (CA, US): “The idea of correcting reading deficiencies early is obviously much, much better than putting a kid in special ed,” he said. “The more you can create the incentive to not give the kid a life sentence in special ed simply because he has a deficiency in reading makes a lot of sense.” (Quoted in “Government Eyes Special Ed Requirements” by Nancy Zukerbrod of the AP; Ms. Zukerbrod’s story was printed elsewhere under other titles.)
• Rachel Quenemoen, parent of a grown child with a disability, in written testimony before the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce: “In [an unspecified--ed.] state, determination of eligibility for IDEA services does not open the door to specialized instruction, services, and supports so that the student can achieve; eligibility for IDEA is a life sentence to low expectations and an alternate curriculum. Would you want that for your child?” (Available here from the National Center on Education Outcomes.)
• Thomas Hruz, an attorney in Wisconsin (US): “Furthermore, students placed in special education are unlikely to exit special education—districts average reevaluating students back into special education at a rate of 82%.” (Quoted from “The Growth of Special Education in Wisconsin.”)

To be sure, probably the largest percentage of those children who receive services in kindergarten but not in thrid grade were identified as having speech and language problems. Even so, it’s important to recognized that the “life-sentence” rhetoric is, well, just that: rhetoric.

Download a PDF copy of the issue brief here or go to the site where one can read the abstract that I’ve reprinted as well as find links to the brief and related documents.

Sphere: Related Content