We Need to Differentiate
Disability Just as We Differentiate Race and Ethnicity
Dear Colleague,
Introduction
Historically, the 2001 No Child Left
Behind version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/NCLB) tracked
students’ academic progress by different subgroups. . . including one
subgroup related to students with disabilities.
As the U.S. Department of Education (USDoE)
realized that not every student in America would become proficient by 2014
(What a shocker !!!), it began to issue state waivers that focused school
improvement status on a Targeted Achievement Gap Group (TAGG) which was
comprised of (a) students at risk due to economic disadvantage; (b) English
Language Learners (ELLs); and—once again (c) Students with Disabilities (SWD).
In essence, schools could find themselves “in
the greatest need of school improvement” (i.e., as Priority schools), or at the
“next level of need for school improvement” (i.e., as Focus schools) based on
the multi-year academic proficiency of their “Non-TAGG” and/or TAGG cohorts of
students, respectfully.
_
_ _ _ _
Fast forward to the 2015 reauthorized
ESEA—also called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA/ESSA).
Three important facets of ESEA/ESSA involve:
(a) the development of a Statewide Accountability System; (b) Academic
Assessments that track students’ proficiency over time; and (c) the
designation of specific “Indicators” such that states can establish a
way to meaningfully differentiate all of its public schools on an annual basis.
All three of these facets involve planning,
assessing, and evaluating Subgroups of Students.
In the “Statewide Accountability System” section
of ESEA/ESSA, it states:
“(T)he term ‘subgroup of students’
means—
(A) economically disadvantaged students;
(B) students from major racial and ethnic groups;
(C) children with disabilities; and
(D) English learners.”
In the “Academic Assessments” section of
ESEA/ESSA, it states that districts and schools need to produce:
“(I)ndividual
student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports, consistent with
clause (iii), regarding achievement on such assessments that allow parents,
teachers, principals, and other school leaders to understand and address the
specific academic needs of students. . .
(and that are)
disaggregated within each State, local educational agency (i.e., District), and
school—by
(I)
each major racial and ethnic group;
(II) economically disadvantaged students as
compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged;
(III) children with disabilities as compared
to children without disabilities;
(IV)
English proficiency status;
(V)
gender; and
(VI)
migrant status. . . .”
Thus, once again, a school’s
improvement status might hinge on the performance of its students with
disabilities.
But here’s the rub:
* Why does ESEA/ESSA require
schools to differentiate their planning, data analysis, and accountability
provisions among different racial and ethnic groups. . . but NOT across the thirteen
different disabilities included in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)?
* How does the pooling of these
13 disabilities mask, convolute, or confuse the academic results of different
students with different disabilities in a school or district. . . and how does
this pooling negatively impact a school’s analysis of the outcomes—especially
when they are unsatisfactory—and the resulting interventions?
* Could the ESEA/ESSA’s pooling
of the different disabilities into one sub-group explain the historically poor
state standards test results—where students with disabilities significantly
underperform their same-grade peers?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Primer on Disabilities
As noted above, IDEA protects
the educational rights of students who “qualify” in one or more of 13 different
disability areas:
Specific
Learning Disability
Speech
or Language Impairment
Orthopedic
Impairment
Visual
Impairment
Hearing
Impairment
Deafness
Deaf-Blindness
Intellectual
Disability
Emotional
Disturbance
Autism
Traumatic
Brain Injury
Other
Health Impairments
Multiple
Disabilities
While “qualification” requires
that a student meet the criteria (see below) of a specific disability category,
IDEA also requires that the disability affect “the child’s involvement and
progress in the general education curriculum.”
That is, while a child may
indeed exhibit the characteristics of a specific disability, they qualify for
special education services and supports (delivered through an IEP) only when
the disability impacts their educational progress.
Obviously, this IDEA language
has been debated and “clarified” in many due process, state, and federal court
hearings and rulings. Moreover, even if
they do not qualify under IDEA, some students with disabilities still receive
their needed services under Section 504 of the (federal) Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.
_ _ _ _ _
Below are brief descriptions of
IDEA’s thirteen disability areas.
As you read these different
descriptions, please think about (in general) how each disability
area impacts (a) a student’s learning and learning progress; (b) a
teacher’s instruction and need to provide accommodations, modifications, and
interventions; and (c) the test-taking process, and what needs to occur to
ensure that the test results are reliable and valid.
Specific Learning Disability. The IDEA
defines a specific learning disability (SLD) as “a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or
in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical
calculations.” This disability category includes such conditions as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia (a type of language disorder).
However, IDEA’s definition notes that SLD “does
not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing,
or motor disabilities; of intellectual disability; of emotional disturbance; or
of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.” This clause helps to
distinguish learning disabilities from the other disability categories
specified by IDEA. SLD is by far the largest category of disability within
the Individuals for Disabilities Education Act.
_ _ _ _ _
Speech or Language Impairments. The IDEA
officially defines speech and language impairments as “a communication
disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a
voice impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.”
Each point within this official definition represents a speech and language
subcategory.
“A communication disorder such as stuttering”
provides an example of a fluency disorder; other fluency issues include unusual
word repetition and hesitant speech.
“Impaired articulation” indicates
impairments in which a child experiences challenges in pronouncing
specific sounds.
“A language impairment” can entail
difficulty comprehending words properly, expressing oneself and listening to
others.
Finally, “a voice impairment” involves
difficulty voicing words; for instance, throat issues may cause an abnormally
soft voice.
_ _ _ _ _
An Orthopedic Impairment
is defined by IDEA as “a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely
affects a child’s educational performance.” IDEA specifies that this term
“includes impairments caused by a congenital anomaly (birth defects),
impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis), and
impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures
or burns that cause contractures).” Aa required by IDEA, orthopedic
impairments involve physical disabilities that affect the academic process of
students.
_ _ _ _ _
A Visual Impairment involves
an issue with sight which interferes with a student’s academic
pursuits. IDEA officially defines the category as “an impairment in vision
that, even with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational
performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness.”
_ _ _ _ _
Hearing Impairment. IDEA
defines a hearing impairment as “an impairment in hearing, whether
permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance but is not included under the definition of ‘deafness’ (see below).
A hearing loss above 90 decibels is generally considered deafness, which
means that a hearing loss below 90 decibels is classified as
a hearing impairment.
_ _ _ _ _
Deafness is an inability to
comprehend verbal language due to an inability to hear characterizes deafness. IDEA
states that deafness is “a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child
is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or
without amplification.” The phrase “with or without amplification” is
significant as it indicates that a hearing aid will not provide sufficient
accommodation so that the student can succeed in the classroom.
_ _ _ _ _
Deaf-Blindness refers to a child with
both hearing and visual disabilities. The IDEA officially defines the
term as “concomitant [simultaneous] hearing and visual impairments,
the combination of which causes such severe communication and other
developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special
education programs solely for children with deafness or children with
blindness.”
According to National Dissemination Center
for Children with Disabilities (abbreviated as NICHCY), deaf-blindness does not
necessarily mean complete losses in these sense areas. NICHCY’s fact sheet on
this disability category states, “the word ‘deaf-blindness’ may seem as if
a person cannot hear or see at all. The term actually describes a person who
has some degree of loss in both vision and hearing. The amount of loss in
either vision or hearing will vary from person to person.”
_ _ _ _ _
Intellectual (or Cognitive) Disability,
formerly labeled “mental retardation,” is defined by IDEA as
“significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently
with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental
period, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.”
There are two key components within
this definition: a student’s cognitive functioning (usually measured with an IQ
test), and his or her capability to function independently at home and in
school in areas like communication, self-help, daily living skills, and
socialization (usually referred to as adaptive behavior).
_ _ _ _ _
Emotional Disturbance. IDEA (somewhat
anachronistically) identifies students with social, emotional, or behavioral
challenges as emotionally disturbed (ED). While many states have changed both
this label and its definition, IDEA’s definition states this disability
involves:
“A condition exhibiting one or more of
the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree
that adversely affects a child’s educational performance:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.”
Significantly, IDEA does not further define or quantify any of the
global elements of the definition above—including the term “social
maladjustment.”
_ _ _ _ _
Autism, as defined by IDEA, refers to
“a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal
communication and social interaction, generally evident (but not required)
before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance.”
The definition also describes traits
commonly related to the condition: “Other characteristics often associated with
autism are engaging in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements,
resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual
responses to sensory experiences. The term autism does not apply if the child’s
educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has
an emotional disturbance.”
_ _ _ _ _
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is
defined in IDEA as “an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external
physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or
psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance.”
The definition continues: “Traumatic brain
injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in
one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning;
abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor
abilities; psycho-social behavior; physical functions; information processing;
and speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or
degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma.”
_ _ _ _ _
Other Health Impairment (OHI)
involves a range of conditions such as (per IDEA): “having limited strength,
vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental
stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational
environment, that— (a) is due to chronic or acute health problems such as
asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia,
nephritis [a kidney disorder], rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and
Tourette syndrome; and (b) adversely affects a child’s educational
performance.”
The list of conditions above is not
inclusive. That is, conditions not
directly named in the definition can still qualify under OHI.
_ _ _ _ _
Multiple Disabilities in IDEA refers
to “concomitant [simultaneous] impairments (such as intellectual
disability-blindness, intellectual disability-orthopedic impairment, etc.), the
combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be
accommodated in a special education program solely for one of the impairments.
The term does not include deaf-blindness.”
Thus, students (other than those identified
as Deaf-Blind) who have coinciding special education programming needs
in two or more disability areas can be considered to have multiple
disabilities.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Why ESEA/ESSA and
Schools Should Differentiate Different Disabilities
From an ESEA/ESSA perspective,
different schools and districts have different percentages of students with
disabilities within them. Moreover—as
you can tell from the very different disabilities covered by IDEA (and the very
different needs of students with different disabilities), I believe that:
* The educational services that schools need
to provide for their students with disabilities will necessarily differ with
the different (percentages of) students with disabilities they must
educate.
_ _ _ _ _
While I understand that—relative
to tracking the academic proficiency of specific subgroups—ESEA/ESSA requires
schools to have a statistically-determined number of students such that the
results are reliable and valid. . .
* I DO NOT believe that it is
fair to identify a district or school as a “Low Performing School” based only
on a “students with disabilities” subgroup that varies by having different
disability clusters of students, at different ages, at different levels of
severity and need, and in schools with different levels of resources.
_ _ _ _ _
From an IDEA perspective,
I ALSO believe that. . .
* Putting all students with
disabilities in one ESEA/ESSA subgroup is negatively affecting schools’
attention to these students’ individual, disability-related service,
support, programmatic, and intervention needs.
That is, in the rush to increase
students with disabilities’ academic proficiency on their state standards tests,
some districts and schools are:
* Teaching all of their students
with disabilities in the same way, in the same classes, with
the same strategies, and with the same learning and mastery expectations—even
though their educations are supposed to be individualized, and their
disabilities may interfere with them learning as quickly or as completely as
their “typical” peers
* Forcing students with
disabilities to be taught academic content and material at their chronological
age- or grade-levels rather than at their functional skill and
understanding levels.
* Ignoring the social,
emotional, and behavioral needs of these students—especially as (for example)
the behavioral intervention needs of some of these students (e.g., students
with emotional disturbances or autism) directly interferes with their academic
engagement and achievement; and the history of academic failure of others of
these students (e.g., students with specific learning disabilities or cognitive
impairments) has created a belief or mindset that they cannot succeed
regardless of the modifications or accommodations provided to them.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative, especially, to the
second bullet above: While we need
to have “high and realistic expectations” of all students, we know that
students with disabilities (indeed, all students) learn best when (a) they have
the prerequisite experiences, knowledge, and skills to engage in and benefit
from new learning; and when (b) new information is provided to them at a level
of reasonable—NOT impossible—challenge.
And yet, many districts and
schools are “violating” the long-standing research and practice in this area—in
the name of ESEA/ESSA.
As but one example: A past Blog [CLICK HERE] described my dealings
with the Special Education Unit of the Arkansas Department of Education and its
“reluctant” (but non-public) agreement with me (as part of a Due Process
hearing) that the goals on a Standards-based IEP do not need to be written
at the student’s age- or grade-level.
This Blog was subtitled, “How
Departments of Education Use Language, Fear, and Ignorance to Get their Way.”
_ _ _ _ _
The “take-away” here is that the
requirements of ESEA/ESSA are negatively impacting the IDEA rights of students
with disabilities.
Relative to the Data
(based on the 38th Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of IDEA, 2016):
In 2014 (the most-recent
data discussed in this Report):
* There were 5,825,505 students
with disabilities identified in the United States ages 6 through 21—an increase
of over 91,000 students from the year before.
* The most prevalent disability
category of students ages 6 through 21 was Specific Learning Disabilities
(39.2%), Speech or Language Impairments (17.6%), Other Health Impairments
(14.4%), Autism (8.6%), Intellectual Disabilities (7.0%), and Emotional
Disturbance (5.9%).
* The percentages of students reported
under the category of Specific Learning Disabilities by the
individual states ranged from 18.7% to 60.4%. The percentages for the following
three states were larger than 50%: Iowa (60.4%), BIE schools (52.3%), and
Nevada (51.3%). In contrast, the percentages for the following seven states
were less than 30%: Wisconsin (28.2%), Massachusetts (28.2%), Missouri (27.8%),
Minnesota (26.9%), Idaho (26.1%), Mississippi (24.4%), and Kentucky (18.7%).
* More than 20% of the students served in
the following five states were reported under the category of Other
Health Impairments: Maine (21.5%), Virginia (21.5%), Connecticut (21.3%),
Washington (20.5%), and Missouri (20.3%). In contrast, less than 9% of the
students served in the following three states were reported in this category:
BIE schools (8.6%), Colorado (4.5%), and Iowa (0.1%).
* More than 11% of the students served in
the following nine states were reported under the category of Autism:
Minnesota (14.1%), California (11.7%), Connecticut (11.4%), Oregon (11.4%),
Nevada (10.8%), Texas (10.7%), Virginia (10.7%), Maryland (10.5%), and Rhode
Island (10.1%). However, less than 4% of the students served in the following
four states were reported under this category: Montana (3.9%), BIE schools (3.0%),
Puerto Rico (3.0%), and Iowa (1.1%).
_
_ _ _ _
Clearly, relative to the last three bullets
above, there is a high probability that each of these states also has districts
and schools that ALSO vary in the percentages of students with these different
disabilities—just as the United States has (as above) significant
variations in these areas across states.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The Recommended
Resolution(s)
As an advocate for students with
disabilities, I want to be clear that the goal here is to improve and
enhance the quality and outcomes of services, supports, programs, and
interventions. I do not believe that
educators, parents with students with disabilities, or anyone else should
“settle” for mediocre, diminished, or limited services.
In fact, if anything, the
quality and success of such services under ESEA/NCLB was depressing and
deplorable.
_ _ _ _ _
And so, given the discussion
above and in the context of ESEA/ESSA giving state departments of education more
self-determination in creating, personalizing, and implementing their own
state-tailored accountability, “high stakes” assessment, and school improvement
systems, here are my suggestions:
* States should require
districts and schools to differentiate and track all ESEA/ESSA outcomes
(including academic achievement and proficiency) across the thirteen disability
groups
* Progress for students with
disabilities should be evaluated using a growth model, and not using a “percent
of proficiency” approach
* The evaluation of expected
growth for students with disabilities should vary by disability, the degree or
significance of impairment, the intensity of services and supports needed, and
other relevant criteria
* District and schools should
not be automatically put into “school improvement” status if the students
with disabilities subgroup (if the state still decides to use this subgroup) is
the only subgroup that is underperforming.
Instead, the district or school
should collaborate with the state’s Special Education Division to mutually
determine that their students with disabilities are receiving every opportunity
to succeed, and that they are making appropriate levels of progress given the
disability-related conditions of their students. If a district or school is not succeeding in
this context, then the state department of education can require
improvements under its ESEA/ESSA school improvement provisions.
* If a state department of
education requires a District and/or School Improvement/Strategic Plan each
year, a specific section of that plan must address how the district and/or
school will plan, resource, and address the academic and social, emotional, and
behavioral needs of its different students with disabilities.
* Within that Plan, states
should require districts and schools to describe their ESEA/ESSA-required multi-tiered
systems of support, and how their specific systems will directly serve and
address the needs of their different students with disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _
To a large degree, the
differentiation and reporting of data by the thirteen different disability
categories will not increase the burden on any district as these data
are already required by their state departments of education as part of their
U.S. Office of Special Education Program Annual Performance Reports.
Instead, as argued above, it is
anticipated that the differentiated attention to the different disability
areas—and the ESEA/ESSA “relief” of not having to track and serve an
impossibly complex and varied students with disabilities subgroup—should improve
the quality and outcomes of services, supports, programs, and interventions
to and with these students. . . making everyone “a winner.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
ESEA/ESSA not only requires, but it gives
schools and districts the opportunity to review, revise, re-energize, and
re-establish effective, responsive, and successful multi-tier system of
supports that are personalized to all of their students, and that maximize
their students’ academic and social, emotional, and behavioral learning,
mastery, and proficiency.
Districts and schools (and
states) need to make ESEA/ESSA worked for them, rather than have this
law dictated to them.
I hope that you found this message useful. .
. if not, at least, thought-provoking.
As always, I appreciate your feedback and comments.
If there is anything that I can do to
facilitate your work in this—and related—areas, please do not hesitate to
contact me. I am always available for a
free consultation—to help you think about how to bring your organization to the
“next level of excellence.”
Best,
Howie
