California Association of School Psychologists

On October 2, 2001, President George Bush ordered that a commission be convened to make recommendations for improving special education law—"revitalizing special education"-- in the United States at the law’s forthcoming re-authorization. The commission was called the Commission on Excellence in Special Education. The Commission’s findings and recommendations are contained in its report titled "A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families."

On August 9-11, 2002, at the annual CASP Board of Directors Retreat in San Francisco, CASP president Dr. Brent Duncan led Board members in a preliminary discussion regarding the Commission’s findings and recommendations. President Duncan decided to take this action because of the possible wide-ranging effects of the Commission’s report on federal and state special education laws and the potential impact on the role of the school psychologist. This preliminary/investigative response is intended to be the foundation for a subsequent position statement by the CASP Board on the recommended changes for the re-authorized IDEA (projected date 2003).

This is an initial response by the CASP Board to the 9 "findings" and 3 "major recommendations" contained in the report. The report itself contains additional detailed recommendations under headings such as "Assessment and Identification" (pp. 20-26). The Board responded to the findings and major recommendations in the "Executive Summary" (pp. 6-9) found in the body of the report. The complete Commission report is available at:

<http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinalreport.pdf>

Because specific changes in the reauthorization of IDEA are expected to be released as proposed legislation by January or February 2003, the CASP Board intends to release a position statement on the Commission’s findings and recommendations as soon as possible.

CASP’s comments and questions are arranged under the items designated in the Commission report as "Findings" and "Major Recommendations." (pp. 6-9) The findings and major recommendations are quoted from the Commission report. CASP’s comments and questions may not be direct quotes of Board members. Although some of the comments and questions may be quotations, some of the comments and questions are composites, abridgements, or distillations thought to constitute "talking points" or questions designed to solicit your input to the Board. It is intentional that some of comments and questions represent different and in some instances conflicting points of view. The final CASP Board position statement will consist of points of agreement, constituting a coherent statement.

Finding 1: "IDEA is generally providing basic legal safeguards and access for children with disabilities. However, the current system often places process above results, and bureaucratic compliance above student achievement, excellence, and outcomes. The system is driven by complex regulations, excessive paperwork, and ever-increasing administrative demands at all levels-for the child, the parent, the local education agency, and the state education agency. Too often, simply qualifying for special education becomes an end-point-not a gateway to more effective instruction and strong intervention."

Board Comments:

• This is not a new finding. It is reflected in the goals to "…heighten attention to improving results for children with disabilities" and to reduce "paperwork and requirements" proposed for IDEA 1997. (p. 55028, Federal Register, 1997) Therefore, although these are critical goals for "revitalizing special education", the Commission’s finding indicates that IDEA ’97 did not "heighten attention to improving results" and did not reduce "paperwork and requirements." In fact, some would argue that IDEA ‘97 increased "bureaucratic compliance." On the other hand, there must be concern about maintaining the rights of students with disabilities to appropriate education (FAPE).

• A reduction of process, regulations, paperwork, and administration requires reducing legislation, litigation, compliance required corrections, and fair hearing rulings. The equation that less law equals less bureaucracy in special education is a corollary of the proposition that special education is inextricably linked with a legal model. State educational codes and regulations need to be scrutinized as well to determine methods for reducing capricious processes and paperwork undertaken by local education areas (LEAs) to comply with federal and state demands.

Finding 2: "The current system uses an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail, instead of a model based on prevention and intervention. Too little emphasis is put on prevention, early and accurate identification of learning and behavior problems, and aggressive intervention using research-based approaches. This means students with disabilities don't get help early when that help can be most effective. Special education should be for those who do not respond to strong and appropriate instruction and methods provided in general education."

Board Comments:

• This finding implies that general education not special education is primarily responsible for "prevention and intervention" and that "Special education should be [only] for those who do not respond to strong and appropriate instruction and methods provided in general education." Therefore, general education has the primary responsibility of replacing "an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail." Even a response-to-intervention model is a wait-to-fail model if not based on potent prevention and intervention provided by general and categorical education programs, including Title 1 and programs for English learners.

• "Models" need to be considered in relation to the 13 special education disabilities. Disabilities such as autism and emotional disturbance should be discussed separately from specific learning disabilities and speech and language impairments. The problems and challenges are very different with the different types of disabilities.

• General education should adopt effective early intervention and remedial instructional/behavioral programs/materials. For example, all kindergarten and 1^st grade students could be screened for phonemic awareness, and those who fail the screening are then provided with additional phonemic training/assessment and monitoring. Similar multi-gating procedures using peer and teacher nominations and follow-up behavior checklists are successful in early identification and remediation of emotional and behavioral difficulties.

Finding 3: "Children placed in special education are general education children first. Despite this basic fact, educators and policy-makers think about the two systems as separate and tally the cost of special education as a separate program, not as additional services with resultant add-on expense. In such a system, children with disabilities are often treated, not as children who are members of general education and whose special instructional needs can be met with scientifically based approaches, they are considered separately with unique costs-creating incentives for misidentification and academic isolation- preventing the pooling of all available resources to aid learning. General education and special education share responsibilities for children with disabilities. They are not separable at any level-cost, instruction, or even identification."

• Although general education should improve pre-special education identification of and intervention for students with learning/behavioral problems and should share financial responsibility for these students, the legal practicability of having no distinction in determining a student’s eligibility for general, categorical, and special education programs is questionable. The legal designation of "disability" under IDEA ’97 is accompanied by extensive legal procedures that would be difficult to address in general education. Consider, for example, the limited procedures under Rehabilitation Act 504 compared with IDEA.

• In the past, general education has not addressed the needs of children with disabilities because there has not been a consensus within and among general, categorical, or special education programs on what are "scientifically based approaches." Consider, for example, the inefficacy of recent reading instruction approaches in both general, categorical, and special education programs as discussed in Baker & Stahl, 1994. And regarding comprehensive early intervention programs for at-risk students, consider National Follow Through Project as discussed in Carnine, Granzin, & Becker, 1988 and Engelmann, 1992. A comprehensive reference on scientifically-based reading approaches is the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (2000).

• Require general, categorical, and special education programs to adopt effective instructional programs/materials that will provide consistency and coherence in grades K-12 in the basic academic skills/subjects within and among general, categorical, and special education programs. (This relates to Kavale and Forness’ statement, "Clearly, setting is not the salient variable that determines instructional success; as an independent variable, setting provides little insight into what constitutes effective instruction." [p. 1008, 1999]) Selection of programs and materials should be based on how well they produce student success in mastering the basic academic skills/subjects. (Carnine, Granzin, & Becker, 1988)

Finding 4: "When a child fails to make progress in special education, parents don't have adequate options and little recourse. Parents have their child's best interests in mind, but they often do not feel they are empowered when the system fails them."

• Parents actually do have a lot of recourse, but they may not know about their options. Economically poor and language minority parents are more likely than wealthy, English speaking parents to under-utilize the resources that are available to them and their child.

• Is this a "silent voucher" proposal, providing public and private school options for both general and special education services? This may reflect some parents' opinions that the system is failing them because no "cure" is available for what is ailing their children. Nevertheless, privatization of special education would be a disastrous setback for education in general, and would result in poorer services for children with disabilities.

Finding 5: "The culture of compliance has often developed from the pressures of litigation, diverting much energy of the public schools' first mission: educating every child."

• Litigation, legislation (including IDEA), federal and state compliance corrections, and hearing officer rulings have infused the "culture of compliance" into both special and general education programs. Litigation, legislation, compliance reviews, and hearing officer rulings feed on each other; and together are expansive.

• IDEA does not cause a culture of compliance. In many cases, state regulations do. California laws are more extensive creating additional compliance issues at the state level. Additionally, rulings in court cases determine future practice. We need more leadership on the state level to ensure that the federal regulations do not become more cumbersome when they get to the state level.

• States are doing what the federal government has forced them to do, which has also resulted in courts deciding how the law should read. Due process rulings, over time, have been allowed to shape and define many aspects of special education. Worst yet, the fear (due to the costs) of due process further motivates practices that might not otherwise exist.

Finding 6: "Many of the current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity. As a result, thousands of children are misidentified every year, while many others are not identified early enough or at all."

Board comments:

• If we do not have valid measures for identifying and defining special education disabilities, how do we know that some children are misidentified and some children with disabilities are not identified early enough? Which of the "current methods" for assessing any of the 13 special education disabilities, if any, are valid?

• Researchers have found that many IEP teams disregard criteria, such as discrepancy rules to qualify students. "…there has been consistent evidence that between 52% and 70% of children identified by the schools as LD [learning disability] do not meet the standards as conceptualized in federal and state definitions of the disability category." (MacMillan & Forness, 1998; MacMillan & Reschly, 1998) Despite the ban on the use of intelligence tests in California, disproportionate representation of African-Americans in special education has remained the same or has increased.

• Regarding the intelligence-academic discrepancy in the current specific learning disability definition, finding younger students not eligible for special education is a problem with the academic tests (limited sensitivity in lower grades) not with the intelligence measures. Moreover, replicated research has shown that specific psychological processing deficits, such as in phonemic processing, attention, and memory, are highly relevant to early identification and intervention of problems with academic achievement.

Finding 7: "Children with disabilities require highly qualified teachers. Teachers, parents, and education officials desire better preparation, support, and professional development related to the needs of serving these children. Many educators wish they had better preparation before entering the classroom as well as better tools for identifying needs early and accurately."

Board comments:

• The administrative requirements of special education law, including IDEA and compliance reviews, contribute to qualified teachers not being attracted to, being burning out by, or being dissatisfied in special education.

• Although the success of teachers in special education is related to their qualifications, an equally important contributor to the success of teachers and their instructional aides is their use of "highly specific, systematic, and structural methodologies with supporting materials of tremendously high quality." (Pogrow, S., 1996; Carnine, 1994; Carnine, Granzin, & Becker, 1988)

Finding 8: "Research on special education needs enhanced rigor and the long-term coordination necessary to support the needs of children, educators and parents. In addition, the current system does not always embrace or implement evidence-based practices once established."

• Educational research should focus on the identification of macro-interventions proven effective in actual school settings, e.g., comprehensive curricula and materials, rather than on micro-interventions or discrete practices/strategies often researched only in clinical settings, such as meta-cognitive strategies. (See Pogrow, S., 1996, for the errors of educational researchers/reformers.) Reliance on micro-interventions—including activities and teaching strategies—does not ensure continuity, coherence, or quality of instruction from one setting or from grade to the next. Furthermore, micro-interventions, even those developed through functional assessments, are often difficult for classroom teachers to implement and to maintain.

• The special education disabilities should be more specifically and comprehensively defined and evaluated so that studies of curriculum/intervention efficacy can clearly define the type(s) of disabilities for which they are effective (Kavale and Forness discuss this under "variability of definitions" [1999]). (This is discussed in Lyon & Cutting, 1998.) An extremely effective instructional program such as Corrective Reading, for example, may not be appropriate for all students with mental retardation or with autism.

• School-wide, if not school district-wide, adoption of curriculum for students with disabilities will prevent discontinuity and dilution of curriculum for students needing potent, long-term, systematic, coherent teaching.

Finding 9: "The focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives in the current system, instead of academic achievement and social outcomes, fails too many children with disabilities. Too few successfully graduate from high school or transition to full employment and post-secondary opportunities, despite provisions in IDEA providing for transition services. Parents want an education system that is results oriented and focused on the child's needs-in school and beyond. In short, our reforms must remove the bureaucracy and regulations that prevent a focus on closing the gap. We must begin with the simple question of whether children with disabilities are learning and functioning well and then reform and tailor the system from there."

Board comments:

• Decreasing or at least not increasing "compliance and bureaucratic imperatives" in special education is essential. But attention and success of general, categorical, and special education programs in meeting the needs of students with low academic achievement and/or disabilities requires attention to (1) collecting highly relevant data/results, such as by functional/formative assessment, including Curriculum-Based Measurement, on student achievement and adjustment. (Shinn, 1989) And (2) primary attention must be given to adopting proven curricular materials that allow for coherent and comprehensive instruction within and among general, categorical, and special education programs.

Major Recommendation 1: "Focus on results—not on process."

• Legislators must at least not add laws or encourage litigation, compliance corrections, or hearing rulings to not add to the "process" (compliance/bureaucracy) of special education.

• Yet, to increase the efficacy of general and special education, legislators may have to add regulations about the role of general education—under general education law--, as in requiring student consultation teams and systematic evaluation of interventions by functional/formative assessments of academics/behaviors. And to address the critical variable of unifying the efforts of general and special education programs in addressing the needs of students with disabilities, legislators must mandate that general, categorical, and special education programs adopt specific, proven, and comprehensive curricula, including remedial and specialized materials.

Major Recommendation 2: "Embrace a model of prevention not a model of failure."

• To make either the current specific learning disability model or a response-to-intervention model not "model[s] of failure", general education must ensure that effective early identification and intervention are available to all students. Otherwise, both models can be called failure models. For a response-to-intervention model to be effective, it should not be based primarily or exclusively on effective assessment but instead primarily on effective instructional/intervention programs. A response-to-intervention model linked with less than highly effective instruction and curriculum for students with disabilities is a failure model.

• Whatever the definition of specific learning disability, without increased sensitivity of measures of academic achievement, specific learning disability will continue to be a wait-to-fail model. Even if some measurement of academic achievement is the sole/primary criterion for eligibility under the specific learning disability category, a student will have to wait to receive remedial instruction if the academic measure(s) used can only identify extremely low levels of academic achievement until a student reaches, for instance, the 2^nd grade.

• Both general and special education programs will "embrace a model of prevention" when there is a consensus about specific, effective prevention practices. It appears that the Committee acknowledges that prevention should be primarily the obligation of general education, not special education, and will need to allocate sufficient resources such as school psychologists to help such a model to succeed.

Major Recommendation 3: "Consider children with disabilities as general education children first."

• Legal and funding regulations/arrangements, especially regarding what have been called the mild special education disabilities, will become less prominent when general, categorical, and special education come to consensus about and adopt effective instructional and curriculum programs/materials.

• General, categorical (including programs for English learners), and special education programs will better address the needs of students with a disability by increasing the specificity of the definitions, assessment practices, and effective instruction and interventions (Lyon & Cutting, 1998). Having allowed greater generality in the definitions, eligibility criteria, assessment, and instruction of special education disabilities is likely a contributor to general, categorical, and special education programs not having addressed the needs of students with disabilities earlier and effectively.

Complete final report from Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education:

http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinalreport.pdf

Final paper on SLD produced by the "Learning Disabilities Roundtable":

http://www.nasponline.org/pdf/SLD_OSEP.pdf

National Council on Disability:

Baker, S. K., & Stahl. S. A. (1994). Beginning reading: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, pp. 372-391.

Carnine. D. (Ed). (1994). Mini-series—Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, pp. 341-471.

Carnine, D., Granzin, A., & Becker. W. (1988). Direct instruction. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 327-349). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Department of Education. (Oct. 22, 1997). "34 CFR Parts 300, 301, and 303; Proposed rule". Federal Register. Author.

Department of Education. (March 12, 1999). "34 CFR Parts 300 and 303: Final regulations". Federal Register. Author.

Engelmann. S. (1992). War against the schools’ academic child abuse. Portland, OR: Halcyon House.

Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The Handbook of School Psychology (3^rd ed., pp. 984-1024). NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lyon, G. R., & Cutting, L. E. (1998). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of Childhood Disorders (2^nd ed., pp. 468-498). NY, NY: Guilford Press.

MacMillian, D. L., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The role of IQ in special education placement decisions: Primary and determinative or peripheral and inconsequential? Remedial and Special Education, 19, pp. 239-253.

MacMillan, D. L., & Reschly, D. J. (1998). Overrepresentation of minority students: The case for greater specificity or reconsideration of the variables examined. The Journal of Special Education, 32, pp. 15-24.

National Institute of Child Health and Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Pogrow. S. (June, 1996). Reforming the wannbe reformers: Why education reforms almost always making things worse. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 656-663.

Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. NY, NY: Guilford Press.