Running Head: SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 1

Special Education Issues

Ruth R. McCoy
University of St. Thomas
EDUC 5345 Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Mild Disabilities
Dr. Kanisha J. Porter
February 19, 2014










SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 2
School administrators have a difficult job today, including balancing budgets, increasing
student performance, and answering parent complaints. The measure of effectiveness for school
administrators depends on how well they handle these tasks. Student performance is especially
critical in todays high-stakes testing driven society. Thanks to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), also called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), many administrators
are tasked with the job of making sure that all of their students, including those with disabilities,
are exposed to academically rigorous programs that lead to grade-level proficiency in reading
and math (Friend, 2014). Based on ESEA/NCLB, the current trend for students with disabilities
is to have educational goals that focus on the general curriculum. This has led to an increase in
collaboration among special educators and traditional or general education teachers, and more
inclusion and mainstream placements for student with disabilities. While the reasons for these
placements and programs seem to be altruistic, not everyone is happy about the idea of having
special education students in regular classrooms (Shanker, 1995; Campbell, 2009). The question
of how beneficial inclusion is for students with special needs is one of the most significant issues
in education today, and underlying that debate are concerns about inequity of resources, lack of
understanding for professional roles, and a tendency to overlook the individual needs of students
with disabilities to further test scores (Ball & Green, 2014; Bleiberg & West, 2013). The
purpose of this brief research analysis is to explore teacher and administration feelings on the
ability to develop effective school inclusion programs and how funding, professionalism, and
high-stakes testing may be eroding the success of many special education programs today.
Literature Review
What is Inclusion?
In the absence of a legal definition for inclusion, a Florida State University Center for
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 3
Prevention and Early Intervention Policy publication entitled the Inclusion White Paper (2002)
aptly notes that inclusion is the full acceptance of all students that leads to a sense of
belonging within a classroom community. It means that students with disabilities are supported
in general education classes while being given specially designed instruction to meet their
individual needs. Friend (2014) notes that as a term, inclusion appears nowhere in federal
legislation governing the education of students with disabilities; instead it is used as a more
common way to reference inclusive practices which are more of a belief or philosophy that
is shared by every member of a school as a learning communityabout their responsibility to
educate all students so that they reach their full potential (p. 22). The practice of having
students with disabilities designated to receive instruction in general education classrooms is not
a new idea, but it has become more prominent as laws promoting standards for students with
disabilities, such as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), was enacted in
1975. Prior to the passing of this important piece of legislation, students with disabilities were
relegated to being taught in separate classes away from students without disabilities (Webster,
2014). PL 94-142 was the first major legislation that mandated a Free and Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE) for students with disabilities, as well as taking extensive steps to make sure
that these students had every opportunity to be educated in integrated settings with students
without disabilities in what is referred to as the Least Restrictive Environment (Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 2007).
What Types of Inclusion Exist?
There are multiple types of inclusion programs being implemented in schools today.
Push-in programs involve a special education teacher or paraprofessional entering into a general
education class to assist students with disabilities with established lessons and curriculum
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 4
objectives, often differentiating instruction to meet their specific needs (Webster, 2014; Barrett,
2013). In this type of co-teaching inclusion model, the special education teacher may not be the
primary instructor for students with disabilities, but in some cases, he or she works alongside the
general education teacher to develop lessons and learning objectives for all students.
In comparison, full-inclusion is where all students are placed in a regular education
program full-time no matter what handicapping condition(s) they possess (Stout, 2007;
Crawford, 2002). Webster (2014) notes that the general education teacher is usually the teacher
of record in full-inclusion models, but the special education teacher is a full partner in the
class who shares the responsibility of designing lessons, tests, and instructional strategies for
students with disabilities alongside the other teacher.
Research Methodology
This exploratory analysis was conducted to briefly delve into the position some educators
take on inclusion. Five educational professionals from the Houston Independent School District
(HISD) were interviewed about their perception of how special education is being managed, their
perceptions on what is needed to maximize the potential of students with disabilities, and mainly
whether they are for or against inclusion in schools. The group of participants included a
senior manager of special education programs (SMSEP), a general education interventionist
(GEI), one special education teacher working with students who have multiple impairments
(SEMI), another special education teacher working as a resource teacher and push-in inclusion
teacher (SERP), and one third grade teacher (TGT). Both special education teachers currently
serve as the special education department chairpersons at their respective campuses in HISD.
Each participant was asked to give as much detail as they felt necessary to portray their feelings
on the current status of special education inclusion programs in HISD.
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 5
Results and Findings
When the five participants were asked to give their opinion on what the major issues
affecting special education are today, their responses varied in length and description. Yet many
of the participants had some common responses. The SMSEP noted that special education
programs do not seem to be set up for success due to a lack of priority given to funding
allocations to special education classes and programs (Personal Communication, September 24,
2013). She added that school principals tend to look at dealing with the needs of students with
disabilities as an afterthought, further explaining why she shouldnt have to tell principals to
buy new computers for special education teachers if they are buying them for all the other
teachers. Respondents GEI and SERP shared the sentiment that more financial resources are
needed to maximize the education of students with disabilities (Personal Communications,
January 21, 2014, & January 27, 2014). Participant SERP noted that on her campus she is the
only teacher who does not have a Smart Board, and other classes have more working
computers and other technology like an Elmo. Participant GEI was in favor of inclusion,
noting that its necessary because children need Tier I instruction no matter what their
disability[and] the more support they have via regular instruction, the better their chances of
succeeding and meeting grade level objectives. Comparatively, participant SERP was opposed
to inclusion programs stating, I dont like it because I have to go into the [general education]
class and work on what the teacher is doing instead of what the IEPs [Individualized Education
Programs] say. Of all five participants, SERP was the only person who did not support
inclusion as an effective way of meeting the needs of special education students, while SEMI
was the only participant who did not list funding or financial resources as a significant issue in
special education today.
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 6
The extended response of participant SERPs in opposition of inclusion notes that, some
[general education] teachers dont like having other teachers in their room co-teaching. Nichols
and Sheffields (2014) research on factors that administrators need to consider when facilitating
inclusive practices reveals that special education teachers often felt like second class citizens.
SMSEP furthers this posture as she explains that she spends a great deal of time trying to educate
people who do not want to change their thinking and she sees a lack of understanding from
general education teachers that everyone is responsible for the education and advancement of
kids in special education in our schools. She added that special and general educators do not
share the responsibility for the outcomes of their most challenged learners. Research on the
advocacy of special education students conducted by Whitby, Marx, McIntire and Wienke
(2013) reveals that special educators accept their responsibility to advocate for their students
with disabilities; however, they also report a belief acquired through experience that personal and
professional risks are inherent in doing so. The study also notes a lack of acceptance for the
multi-faceted roles of special educators, which results in special educators further feelings of
alienation and professional disrespect. Participants SEMI and TGT did not report any problems
with professional relationships as pertinent issues affecting inclusion (Personal Communications,
January 13, 2014).
The third issue revealed by respondents as a major, relative factor affecting the inclusion
of special education students was the extensive focus on standardized testing. Participant SEMI
stated,
I believe that academic testing is the biggest problem that we have with public school.
With the NCLB Act testing is being pushed on all students, even those that are not
academically capable. Some self-contained students that are on a functional level are not
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 7
being supported in those [functional] areas as much anymore because the district is
forcing academics and they want passing test scores. Some students, depending on their
FIE [Full Individual Evaluation] and abilities, should not be tested (Personal
Communication, January 13, 2014).
The feeling that students with disabilities individual needs are being overlooked in favor of
furthering test scores was also noted by SERP, who stated that the only thing her principal
seems to care about is whether special education students can take a modified test. Even GEI
notes that IEPs are not being followed and the level of support is not being provided for
students to be truly successful and catch up to their peers. Research conducted by Berry, Berst,
Jund, Overton, Rondina, and Tate (n.d.) reveals that a new focus on standardized testing has
been at the forefront of lesson planning in the classroom which has led to a competitive, score-
oriented education system in which our students with special needs are viewed as an unfortunate
problem instead of an asset to the classroom (p. 19). The authors conclude by saying that
school funding should be based more on social development rather than standardized testing in
order to achieve greater social awareness and educational benefits for all.
Conclusions & Recommendations
The overall findings of this analysis indicate the presence of varying opinions about what
exists as the major issues with special education in schools today. One central theme reported by
all participants was that inclusion is something that needs more attention. The feelings of all
participants were not unanimously in favor of inclusion as a good thing; however, most were
in support of using and participating in such programs to further the academic achievement of
students with disabilities. When asked which issues posed the most concerns for respondents in
terms of making special education inclusion more viable, the biggest problem noted was funding
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 8
and a lack of equity in how technological resources are apportioned to general and special
education teachers alike. The second issue cited was a lack of understanding and appreciation
for the role of special educators as professionals. Finally, concern was noted about the problems
arising from special education students having too little individualized instruction due to a
heightened focus on standardized testing in general education classes. The major limitation of
this research is that there were only five study participants and that open-ended survey questions
were used. It is held that if time permitted, more respondents would be chosen and a lengthier
survey would be devised to include additional factors that are noted to correlate with inclusion
program effectiveness in current research.
No research analysis would be complete without considering how to make changes that
would benefit children in special education. Effective special education leaders should look
carefully at current funding allocations to see if all monies are being allocated fairly. If this were
not the case, district policies would need to be developed to provide more guidance for school
principals, along with tighter restrictions and oversight on spending. Another recommendation
would be to schedule joint staff development training between general education and special
education teachers focusing on changing roles, the importance of inclusion, and effective
methods and practices. These trainings should be on-going throughout the school year to
maximize practice and carry-over. Finally, with the reauthorization of NCLB in the very near
future, special education leaders must become active in working with state legislators to be in the
forefront of any major changes regarding high-stakes testing practices. The best way to affect
educational policy decisions is to be involved in its formation and development, rather than
being left to make adjustments after all is said and done.

References
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 9
Ball, K., & Green, R. L. (2014). An investigation of the attitude of school leaders towards the
inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education setting. National Forum
of Applied Educational Journal. 27: 1 & 2.
Barrett, L. (2013, Spring). Giving gen ed teachers the tools to realize the potential of inclusive
classrooms. Retrieved from
http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/general/Seamless_Teaching.pdf
Berry, G., Berst, T., Jund. A. S., Overton, M., Rondina, A., & Tate, M. (n.d.). What are
teachers attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom? California
State University, San Bernadino. Retrieved from
http://emurillo.org/Classes/Class2/documents/AttitudesInclusion.doc
Bleiberg, J., & West, D. M. (2013, June 18). Special education: The forgotten issue in No Child
Left Behind Reform. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-
front/posts/2013/06/18-special-education-no-child-left-behind-bleiberg-west#
Campbell. J. (2009, November 22). Barriers to inclusion the good vs. the bad. Critical Look
at Autism. Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/desai003/jigna/2009/11/barriers-to-
inclusion--good-vs-bad.html
Crawford, D. B. (2002, November 6). Full inclusion: One reason for opposition. Retrieved
from http://my.execpc.com/~presswis/inclus.html
Friend, M. (2014). Special education: Contemporary perspectives for school professionals.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Inclusion white paper. Florida State University Center for Prevention & Early Intervention
Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cpeip.fsu.edu/resourceFiles/resourceFile_18.pdf
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. (2007). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov
SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUES 10
Nichols, S. C., & Sheffield, A. N. (2014). Is there an elephant in the room? Considerations that
administrators tend to forget when facilitating inclusive practices? National Forum of
Applied Educational Research Journal. 27:1&2
Shanker, A. (1995, January). Full inclusion is neither free or appropriate. Educational
Leadership: The Inclusive School. 52:4, 18-21. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec94/vol52/num04/Full-
Inclusion-Is-Neither-Free-Nor-Appropriate.aspx
Stout, K. S. (2007, March 15). Special education inclusion. Retrieved from
http://www.weac.org/Issues_Advocacy/Resource_Pages_On_Issues_one/Special_Educat
ion/special_education_inclusion.aspx
Webster, J. (2014). Inclusion what is inclusion? Federal law requires students with
disabilities learn with typical peers. Retrieved from
http://specialed.about.com/od/integration/a/Inclusion-What-Is-Inclusion.htm
Whitby, P. J. S., Marx, T., McIntire, J., & Wienke, W. (2013, May/June). Advocating for
student with disabilities at the school level. Teaching Exceptional Children. 45:5, 32-
39.