Shifting Trends in Special Education Essay Example for Free

Shifting Trends in Special Education EssayThe Thomas B. Fordham make for. is. the. peoples. leader. in. advancing. educational. excellence. for. every. child. through. quality. research,. analysis,. and. commentary,. as. well. as. on-the-ground. action. and. advocacy. in. Ohio.. It. is. affiliated. with. the. Thomas.. B.. Fordham. Foundation,. and. this. publication. is. a.. joint. project. of. the. Foundation. and. the. Institute For. further. information,. please. visit. our. website. at. www. edexcellence. net. or. write. to. the. Institute. at.. 1016. 16th. St.. NW,. 8th. Floor,. Washington,. D. C.. 20036The. Institute. is. neither. connected. with. nor..sponsored. by. Fordham. University. A. big. thank. you. goes. out. to. the. whole. Fordham. team. for. their. assistance. on. this. project,. especially. Michael. Petrilli. and. Chester. E.. Finn,. Jr.. for. their. project. guidance. and. astute. feedback,. to. Daniela. Fairchild. for. production. management,. to. istockphoto. com/ AnithaCumming. for. the. snappy. cover. image,. and.. to. Amy. Fagan. for. dissemination.. The. smart. layout. design. is. the. work. of. Alton. Creative. and. the.. Ed. Shorts. logo. of. Laura. Elizabeth. Pohl. Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure. A1. Proportion. of. the. National. Student.. Population. with. Disabilities,. 1976-77. to. 2009-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table. A1. National. Number. of. Students.. with. Disabilities. by. Category,. 2000-01. to. 2009-10. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table. A2. Students. with. Disabilities. by. State,.. 2000-01. to. 2009-10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. Appendix B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Federal. stultification. Definitions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N supererogatory knowledge EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY Executive Summary Special. educat ion. is. a. field. in. flux.. After. decades. of. steady. increases,. the. population. of. students. with. disabilities. peaked. in. 2004-05. with. 6. 72. million. youngsters,. comprising. 13. 8. percent. of. the. nations. student. population..The. following. year. marked. the. first. time. since. the. enactment. of. the. Individuals. with. Disabilities. Education. Act. ( psyche). that. special-education. participation. numbers. declinedand. they. have. continued. to. do. so,. falling. to. 6. 48. million. students. by. 2009-10,. or. 13. 1. percent. of. all. students. nationwide.This. report. examines. trends. in. the. number. of. special-education. students. and. personnel. at. both. the. national. and. state. levels. from. 2000-01. to. 2009-10.. It. finds. that. the. overall. population. of. special-education. students,. after. decades. of. increases,. peaked. in. the.2004-05. school. year. and. has. declined. since..But. within. this. population,. individual. categories. of. stude nts. with. disabilities. differed. markedly. in. thei r. trajectories . . he. population. of. students. identified. as. having. specific. learning. disabilities,. the. most. prevalent. of. all. T dis. bility. types,. declined. considerably. throughout. the. decade,. falling. from. 2. 86. million. to. 2. 43. million. a students,. or. from. 6. 1. to. 4. 9. percent. of. all. students. nationwide. . . ther. shrinking. disability. categories. included. mental. retardation,. which. dropped. from. 624,000. to. 463,000.O students,. or. from. 1. 3. to. 0. 9. percent. of. all. pupils,. and. emotional. disturbances,. which. fell. from. 480,000. to. 407,000. students,. or. from. 1. 0. to. 0. 8. percent. . . utism. and. other. health. impairment. (OHI). populations. increased. dramatically.. The. number. of. autisA tic. students. quadrupled. from. 93,000. to. 378,000,. while. OHI. numbers. more. than. doubled. from. 303,000. to. 689,000.. Even. so,. autistic. and. OHI. populations. constituted. only. 0. 8. and. 1. 4. percent,. respectively,. of. all. students. in. 2009-10. In. addition,. state-level. special-education. trends. varied. dramatically .. hode. Island,. pertly. York,. and. milliampere. reported. the. highest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009R 10. Rhode. Island. was. the. only. state. with. more. than. 18. percent. of. its. student. body. receiving.. special-education. services. . . exas,. Idaho,. and. Colorado. reported. the. lowest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009-10.. Adjusting.. T for. overall. population. size,. Texas. identified. just. half. as. many. students. with. disabilities. as. Rhode. Island. 9. 1. percent. of. its. total. student. body. States. also. varied. in. their. special-education. personnel. practices,. so.much. so. that. the. accuracy. of. the. data. they. report. to. Washington. is. in. question.. Nationally,. schools. ostensibly. employed. 129. special-education. teachers. and. paraprofessionals. for. every . thousand. special-education. students. in. 2008-09,. up. from. 117. per. thousand. in. 2000-01.. At. the. state. level,. this. ranged. from. a. reported. 320. per. thousand. in. New. Hampshire,. to. thirty-eight. per. thousand. in. Mississippi.. (We. appreciate. the. implausibility. of. these. numbers,. which. come. from. the. only. available. official. source. )1 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION I NTRODUCTIONIntroduction Last. summer,. New. Jerseys. Star-Ledger. ran. a. hard-hitting. piece. about. the. condition. of. education. finance. in. the. Garden. State.. It. bemoaned. a. dismal. school-system. budget. in. which. teachers. had. been. laid. off,. extracurricular. activities. scrapped,. and. free. transportation. curtailed.. But. one. budgetary. category. had. been. spared. special. education. This. is. an. area. that. is. completely. out. of. control. and. in. desperate. need. of. reform,. said. Larrie.Reynolds,. superintendent. in. the. Mount. Olive. School. Distr ict,. where. special-education. spending. rose. 17. percent.this. year.. Everything. else. has. a. finite. limit.. Special. educationin. this. state,. at. leastis. similar. to. the. universe.. It. has. no. end.. It. is. the. untold. story. of. what. every. school. district. is. dealing. with. 1 And. so. it. is.. Special. education. consumes. a. hefty. slice. of. the. education. pie,. comprising. an. estimated. 21. percent. of. all. education. spending. in. 2005.. That. slice. is. growing,. too..Forty-one. percent. of. all. increases. in. education. spending. between. 1996. and. 2005. went. to. fund. it. 2 As. Superintendent. Reynolds. indicated,. special. education. is. a. field.in. urgent. need. of. reform.. Not. only. is. its. funding. widely. seen. as. sacrosanctdue. to. federal. maintenance. of. effort. requirements,. strong. special-education. lobbies,. nervous. superintendents,. entrenched. traditions,. and. inertia,. as. well. as. a. collective. sense. that. we. should. do. right. by. these. kidsbut. Americas. approach. to. it. is. also. antiquated..Despite. good. intentions. and. some. reform. efforts,. the. field. is. still. beset. by. a. compliance-oriented. mindset. that. values. process. over. outcomes.. Thirty-six. years. after. Congress. passed. the. Education. for. All. Handicapped.Chil dren. Act. (now. the. Individuals. with. Disabilities. Education. Act. or. IDEA),. the. rigidities. and. shortcomings. of. yesterdays. approach. have. become. overwhelming,. as. have. the. dollar. costs.. There. has. to. be. a. better. way. We. at. the. Thomas. B.. Fordham. Institute. seek. to. help. chart. a. different. path,. doing. right. by. children. with. special. needs. while. recognizing. both. that. every. youngster. is. special. in. some. way. and. that. the. taxpayers. pocket. is. not. bottomless.. This. is. the. first. of. several. special-education. eye. openers. that. were. undertaking.3. Ten. years. ago,.we. dipped. our. toes. into. the. turbid. w aters. of. special-education. policy. via. a. set. of. thought-provoking. papers. in. a. volume. titled. Rethinking Special Education for a New Century. 4. The. fundamental. shift. from. compliance. to. outcomes. that. we. advocated. in. that. volume. has,. for. the. most. part,. not. come. to. pass. (though. we. may. see. a. glimmer. of. hope. in. the. implementation. of. Response. to. Intervention. RTI. programs).. Still,. somedayprobably. after. the. delayed. reauthorization. of. the. Elementary. and. Secondary. Education. ActCongress. will. again. take. up. IDEA..Methodologypecial-education. student-population. data. (referred. to. in. federal. reporting. requirements. as. child. count). and. personnel. data. were. drawn. from. the. Data. Accountability. Center,. funded. by. the. Office. of. Special. Education. Programs. in. the. U. S.. Department. of. Education. and. located. at. ideadata. org. 5. Child-count. totals. are. reported. each. year. by. states. and. include. all. ch ildren. ages. three. to. twenty-one. identified. with. disabilities.6. Thus,. the. term. students. with. disabilities. in. this. report. refers. to. the. number. of. students. that. the. education. system. recognizes.as. having. disabilities.. Variation. among. the. states. disability. incidence. rates. almost. surely. has. more. to. S do. with. how. a. state. defines. and. identifies. special-needs. students. (i. e. ,. whether. a. state. over-. or. under-identifies. disabilities). than. with. the. true. population. of. disabled. children. in. that. state. .To. calculate. each. states. disability. incidence. rate,. child-count. numbers. were. divided. by. total. state. enrollment. figures. 7. State. enrollment. data. were. drawn. from. the.Digest of Education Statistics.. Total. student. enrollment. data. for. the. 2009-10. school. year.had. not. been. released. as. of. publication. thus. 2009-10. figures. are. based. on. projections. published. in. the. Digest. 2 SH I FTI NG TREN D S I N SPECIAL EDUCATION I NTRODUCTION Its. our. hope. that. the. next. iteration. of. that. fairness. will. benefit. from. fresh. thinking. amid. changed. realities. But. that. day. has. not. yet. dawned.. And. before. we. can. seriously. re-imagine. the. field. of. special. education. and. how. it. should. be. funded,. we. need. a. basic. understanding. of. the. state. of. special. education. todayand. how. its. changed. over. the. past. decade..Many. are. aware,. for. instance,.that. the. number. of. students. who. received. specialeducation. services. rose. steadily. between. IDEAs. enactment. in. 1975. and. the. turn. of. the. century.. But. is. this. population. still. growing?. Are. particular. types. of. disabilities. responsible. for. overall. trends?. What. types. of. personnel. do. schools. employ. to. teach. these. students?. Accurate. descriptive. data. on. questions. like. these. are. a. scarce. commodity. (more. on. that. later),. but. we. desperately. need. them. if . were. to. wrestle. with. the. more. complex. questions. that. vex. the. field,. such. as.Have. rising. numbers. of.special-education. students. driven. up. costs?. Which. states. are. spending. more. and. which. are. spending. less. per. special-education. student. than. others?. Are. states. correctly. identifying. students. and. providing. them. with. appropriate. services?. What. types .of. interventions. are. most. effective. with. special-needs. children? This. report. sets. forth. the. number. of. children. identified. with. disabilities. in. our. nations. schools. by. disability. type,. nationally. and. by. state,. examining. how. those. patterns. have. changed. over. the. past. decade.. It. also. addresses .Which. states. have. the.largest. and. smallest. proportions. of. children. judged. to. have. disabilities . The. extent. to. which. the. numbers. of. students. with. specific. learning. disabilities. have. changed. over. the. last. ten. years. and . The. number. of. sp ecial-education. personnel. employed. nationally. and. how. this. varies. by. state. We. also. dig. into. a. couple. of. outliersMassachusetts. and. Texasand. attempt. to. explain. why. their. data. look. like. they. do.. We. close. with. a. few. takeaways. and. next. steps.. 3 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Findings Students with Disabilities across America.After. decades. of. steady. increases,. the. population. of. students. with. disabilities. peaked. in. 2004-05. with. 6. 72. million. youngsters,. comprising. 13. 8. percent. of. the. national. student. body. (see. Figure. 1).. The. following. year. marked. the. first. time. since. the. enactment. of. IDEA. in. 1975. that. special-education. participation. numbers. declined.. (For. a. long-term. trend. analysis. of. the. special-education. population,. see. Appendix. A. ).Since. then,. the. number. and. proportion. of. students. with. disabilities. has. decreased. steadily,. falling. to. 13. 1. percent. o f. the. national. student.body. by. 2009-10,. or. 6. 48. million. students.. 1 13. 8 13. 6 13. 4 13. 2 13. 0 Proportion of the National Student Population with Disabilities, 2000-01 to 2009-10 This. national. trend. is. driven. by. shifting. populations. of. particular. disability. types..The. federal. government. requires. all. states. to. report. studentpopulation. numbers. across. twelve. categories. of. disability. (the. reporting. of. a. thirteenth,. termed. developmental. delay,. is. optional). autism. deafblindness. emotional. disturbance. hearing. impairments. mental. retardation. multiple. disabilities. orthopedic. impairments. other.health. impairments. specific. learning. disabilities. speech. or. language. impairments. traumatic. brain. injuries. and. visual. impairments.. (For. the. full. federal. definition. of. each. category,. see. Appendix. B. ). 1 2 4 6 7 3 5 8 9.Much. of. the. recent. decrease. in. the. overall. specialeducation. population. can. be. attributed. t o. the. shrinking. population. of. students. identified. with. specific. learning. disabilities. (SLDs).. After. decades. of. growth,. the. proportion. of. students. with. SLDs. peaked. in. 2000-01. and. declined. thereafter,. falling. from. 2. 86. million. to. 2. 43. million. students.between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. or. from. 6. 1. to. 4. 9. percent. of. the. national. student. body. 8. -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 07 -0 -0 -0 00 -0 04 02 06 03 05. separate. disability. categories. declined. as. well.. The. population. of. students. with. mental. retardation. dropped. from. A Caveat on Disability Types T he. federal. government. requires. states. to. report. child-count. numbers. across. twelve. disability. categories. each. year. (a. thirteenth. category. is. optional),. but. does. not. require. that. states. actually. use. those. categories. for. their. own. within-state. identification. and. data-collection. purposes.. Thus,.state-specific. nuances. in. disability. definitions. abound..For. example,. many. states. employ. their. own. unique. definitions. for. each. of. the. thirteen. categories. and/or. combine. and. eliminate. categories.. At. least. one. state. goes. so. far. as. to. identify. no. individual. categories,. opting. instead. for. a. single. eligible. individual. classification. for. students. with. disabilities. (see. Iowas SLD Trend True or imitation? ).. To. meet. federal. reporting. requirements,. these. states. must. estimate. the. number. of. students. with. disabilities. within. each. federal. category..And. in. some. cases,.federal. reporting. requirements. allow. states. to. report. one. category. within. anotherfor. example,. seven. states. report. students. with. multiple. disabilities. in. their. primary-disability. categories. rather. than. in. the. multiple. disabilities. 08 09 01 -10 category.. The. lack. of. consistency. in. defining. and. reporting. data. across. all. fifty. states. renders. any. state-level. comparison. of. students. w ith. disabilities. inherently. imprecise. . Take,. for. example,. recent. categorization. changes. in. Ohio.. Prior. to. 2007-08,. preschoolers. (three-. to. five-yearolds). with. disabilities. in. the.Buckeye. State. were. lumped. together. in. a. single. disability. category.. In. that. year,. however,. Ohio. first. required. preschoolers. to. be. sorted. into. distinct. categories.. To. ease. the. transition,. districts. classified. all. existing. preschoolers. with. disabilities. as. having. developmental. delays. thereafter,. all. new. preschoolers. with. disabilities. were. to. be. categorized. by. disability..As. could. be. expected,. the. number. of. students. with. developmental. delays. reported. to. the. federal. government. suddenly. grew. from. 0. to. 19,000. in. 2007-08,. and. then. fell. by. half. in. 2008-09.and. again. slightly. in. 2009-10. 9. Such. inconsistenciesthis. is. just. one. example. of. myriad. state. eccentricities. and. idiosyncrasiesconfuse. trend. an alyses. at. both. the. state. and. national. level. 4 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 624,000. to. 463,000. in. that. time,. or. from. 1. 3. percent. to. 0. 9. percent. of. all. students..The. number. identified. with. emotional. disturbances. fell. from. near. 480,000. in. 2000-01. to. 407,000. by. 2009-10. (after. peaking. at. 489,000. students. in. 2003-04),. or. from. 1. 0. to. 0. 8. percent. of. all. students..Offsetting. a. portion. of.the. decline. in. these. disability. categories. were. sharp. increases. in. the. populations. of. students. with. autism. and. other. health. impairm ents. (OHIs). over. the. last. decade.. The. number. of. autistic. students. quadrupled. between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. rising. from. 93,000. to. 378,000,. while. the. number. of. OHI. students. more. than. doubled. from. 303,000. to. 689,000.. Still,. the. autistic. and. OHI. populations. constituted. only. 0. 8. and. 1. 4. percent,. respectively,. of. all. students. in. 2009-10.The. category. of. developmental. delay,. which. often. serves. as. a. general. disability. category.for. young. students. (typically. ages. three. to. five. or. three. to. nine),. grew. as. well,. from. 213,000. students. in. 2000-01. to. 368,000. in. 2009-10,. or. from. 0. 5. to. 0. 7. percent. of. all. students. The. incidence. of. other. disability. types. (which,. other. than. speech. or. language. impairments,. comprise. a. small. fraction. of. the. total). either. remained. stable. or. declined. slightly. during. this. time.. Figure. 2. shows. in. pie. chart. form. how. the. composition. of. the. special-education. population. has. changed. over. the. past. decade..While. SLD. students. constituted. 45. 4. percent. of.all. students. with. disabilities. in. 2000-01,. that. percentage. had. shrunk. to. 37. 5. percent. by. 2009-10.. Autism,. on. the. other. hand,. increased. from. 1. 5. percent. of. all. identified. disabilities. to. 5. 8. percent.. OHI. identifications. doubled. from. 4. 8. to. 10. 6. percent,. while. cases. of. both. emotional. disturbance. and. mental. retardation. decreased. relative. to. other. identifications. 2 Special-Education Population by Disability 2000-01 and 2009-10 3. 4% 1. 5% 4. 8% 5. 3% 7. 6% 9. 9% 5. 1% 5. 8% 21. 8% 5. 7% 10. 6% 6. 3% 37. 5% 7. 1% 22. 0% 45. 4% n = 6. 30 million students ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?1. 5% 3.4% 4. 8% 7. 6% 9. 9% 45. 4% 22. 0% 5. 3% Autism developmental Delay Other Health Impairment Emotional Disturbance Mental Retardation Specific encyclopedism Disability actors line or Language Impairment Other Disabilities ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2000-01 n = 6. 48 million students 5. 8% 5. 7% 10. 6% 6. 3% 7. 1% 37. 5% 21. 8% 5. 1% Autism Developmental Delay Other Health Impairment Emotional Disturbance Mental Retardation Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Other Disabilities 2009-10 Note.The. special-education. population. in. 2009-10. was. slightly. larger. in. raw. numbers. than. it. was. in . 2000-01,. but. the. proportion.of. students. with. disabilities. among. all. students. declined. from. 13. 3. percent. in. 2000-01. to. 13. 1. percent. in. 2009-10.. 5 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Students with Disabilities by State The. national. figures. mask. stark. variation. among. the. states.. As. Figure. 3. shows,. Rhode. Island,. New. York,. and. Massachusetts. topped. the. list. with. the. highest. rates. of. disability. identification. in. 2009-10. Rhode. Island. was. the. only. state. to. have. more. than. 18. percent. of. its. student. body. enrolled. in. special. education.. At. the. other. end. of. the. spectrum. were.Texas,. Idaho,. and. Colorado.. Texass. rate. of. disability. identification. was. less. than. half. of. Rhode. Islands,. at. just. 9. 1. percent. (see. Figure. 4. for. complete. state. identification. rates).. These. vast. disparities. call. into. question. the. extent. to. which. true. incidences. of. disability. vary. among . state. populations,. or. to. which. some. states. over-identify. or. under-identify. students. with. disabilities. 10 3 Identification evaluate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 WA MT OR ID WY NE NV CA UT CO KS IA IL MO TN AR MS TX LA FL AL GA SC IN OH WV KY NC AZ NM OK VA SD ND MN WI NY MI PA.VT ME NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD D. C. ? 9. 0? ? 10. 99% ? 11. 0? ? 12. 99% ? 13. 0? ? 14. 99% ? 15. 0? ? 16. 99% ? 17. 0? ? 18. 99% AK US bonny HI About. half. of. the. states. saw. increases. in. their. rates. of. special-education. identification. between. 2000-01. and. 2009-10,. while. the. other. half. saw. decreases. (see. Figure. 5).. The. national. proportion. of. students. with. disabilities. rose. and. fell. over. that. time. period,. landing. 0. 2. percentage. points. lower. in. 2009-10. (at. 13. 1. percent). than. in. 2000-01. (at. 13. 3. percent).. Texass. rate. of. identification. fell. from. 12. 1. percent. to.9. 1. percentin. raw. numbers,. a. decrease. of. about. 4 7,000. students.. Pennsylvania,. on. the. other. hand,. saw. an. increase. in. students. with. disabilities. from. 13. 4. percent. of. the. student. body. in. 2000-01. to. 16. 7. percent. in. 2009-10or,. in. raw. numbers,. an. increase. of. 52,000. students. 6 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 4 Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 18. 68 17. 80 17. 36 17. 25 17. 16 Massachusetts Maine Rhode Island New York 5 Percentage-point Change in Identification Rate, by State 2000-01 to 2009-10 3. 29 2. 39 2. 05 1. 80 1. 80 1.76 1. 35 1. 16 1. 14 1. 12 1. 72 2. 53.Pennsylvania Wyoming Vermont westernmost Virginia Vermont Pennsylvania indium New Jersey Wyoming New York Minnesota Ohio 16. 66 16. 84 16. 55 16. 52 15. 60 15. 55 15. 57 15. 74 southeasterly Dakota North Dakota Kentucky New Hampshire Delaware Kentucky Illinois New Hampshire Michigan Massachusetts neon randomness Dakota Oklahoma Wisconsin Missouri Ohio 14. 80 14. 75 14. 71 14. 97 15. 04 Oklahoma Indiana Alaska Delaware Kansas 0. 99 0. 98 0. 71 0. 71 1. 10 Minnesota 14. 66 Mississippi Washington surgery Illinois D. C. 14. 64 14. 34 14. 15 14. 58 0. 46 0. 52 Wisconsin Arizona Utah 0. 39 0. 38 0. 14 0. 42.North Dakota Oregon Kansas 14. 26 14. 12 Nebraska California New Jersey Maine 0. 09 0. 08 0. 03 0. 07 South Carolina Michigan Alaska Iowa Florida 14. 09 14. 06 13. 98 13. 79 13. 55 13. 14 13. 99 13. 94 fall in States -0. 04 -0. 26 -0. 28 -0. 53 -0. 61 -0. 61 -0. 20 New Mexico Arkansas Virginia t Nevada Arkansas Colorado United States Mississippi Louisiana 13. 42 13. 03 12. 53 12. 30 12. 25 11. 94 11. 28 11. 28 11. 13 11. 17 12. 21 12. 41 12. 57 Maryland Missouri Virginia Iowa Louisiana -0. 60 Washington computed tomography Tennessee Maryland -0. 70 -0. 74 -0. 85 -0. 85 -1. 03 -1. 03 -1. 43 -1. 43 -1. 54 -1. 72 -1. 41 -0. 75 -0. 72 D.C. North Carolina Hawaii Utah Montana West Virginia tabun Florida Rhode Island Connecticut aluminum Arizona Nevada Californi a 10. 67 Colorado Georgia 10. 45 10. 27 9. 89 9. 13 10. 58 South Carolina Hawaii Idaho North Carolina Tennessee Idaho Texas 0 5 10 15 20 New Mexico Texas aluminium -2. 32 -2. 98 -3. 5 -1. 75 0 1. 75 3. 5 -2. 52 -2. 01 DISABILITY appointment RATE (%).PERCENTAGE-POINT CHANGE IN IDENTIFICATION RATE 7 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Specific Learning Disabilities As. the. most. prevalent. of. all. disability. types,. the. category. of. specific. learning. disabilities. (SLDs). provides.a. unique. look. into. shifting. disability. populations..The. nationwide. population. of. students. with. specific. learning. disabilities. shrank. at. a. notable. rate. over. the. decade. leading. to. 2009-10. SLD. numbers. fell. from. 2. 86. million. students. and. 6. 1. percent. of. the. national. student. body. in. 2000-01. to. 2. 43. million. students. and. 4. 9. percent. of. the. student. body. in. 2009-10. 11. Some. of. this. drop. was. likely. due. to. an. increasing. nat ional. awareness. of. autism. and. a. subsequent. shift. from. incorrect. SLD. identification. to. autism. identification..A. few. other. hypotheses.are. worth. mentioning.. First,. growing. populations. of. students. with. developmental. delays,. which. may. in. some. states. substitute. for. autism. diagnoses. of. three-. to. five-year-olds,. and. with. OHIs,. which. has. become. somewhat. of. a. catch. all. category,. may. be. responsible. for. some. of. the. SLD. decrease,. in. addition. to. growth. in. autism.. Second,. SLD. numbers. may. have. dropped. due. to. the. proliferation. of. Response. to. Intervention. (RTI)a. method. of. providing. targeted. assistance. to. young. children. who. have. difficulty. learningand. other. early-reading. interventions. (see.Response to Intervention).. Lastly,. the. identification. of. SLDs,. though. strictly. outlined. in. policy,. appears. more. subjective. and. prone. to. human. error. than. the. identification. of. most. other. disabili ties. thus,. SLD. identification. is. perhaps. more. affected. by. related. changes. in. policy,. budget,. personnel,. and so forth Rates. of. SLD. identification. varied. across. the. fifty. states. in. 2009-10.. As. shown. in. Figure. 6,. just. 2. percent. of. the. student. body. in.Kentucky. was. labeled. SLD. in. 2009-10,. while. over. 8. 4. percent. o f. Iowas. student. body. was. classified. as. such.. Similarly,. in.2009-10,. Kentuckys. SLD. students. comprised. only. 13. 1. percent. of. the. states. entire. special-education. student. body,. while. in. Iowa. they. accounted. for. 60. 4. percent..Across. the. entire. United. States,. SLD. students. comprised. 4. 9. percent. of. all. students. and. 37. 5. percent. of. all. students. with. disabilities. in. 2009-10.. Massachusetts. saw. the. greatest. percentage-point. decrease. in. its. SLD. population. between. 2000-01. and. 200910.. There,. SLD. students. fell. from. 9. 8. to. 5. 9. percent. of. all. students. during. that. time.. As. a. slice. of. the. specialeducation. pie,. in. fact,.Massachusettss. SLD. students. went. from. 58. 7. percent. of. all. special-education. students. to. just. 33. 3. percent.. Despite. this. declining. proportion,. however,. Massachusetts. still. identifies. the. second. overall. highest. rate. of. disability. in. the. nation. (see. Behind the Numbers in Outlier States. on. page. 13). Response to Intervention esponse. to. Intervention. (RTI). is. a. method. of. providing. targeted. and. increasingly. intensive. assistance. to. young. children. who. have. difficulty. learning.. RTI. began. to. gain. ground. with. the. enactment. of. the. No. Child. Left. Behind. Act. (NCLB). in.2001,. which. provided. schools. with. Reading. First. grants. to. introduce. it. and. other. early-reading. strategies. into. general. education.. But. the. program. spread. more. rapidly. in. the. aftermath. of. the. 2004. reauthorization. of. IDEA,. which. allowed. districts. to. spend. 15. perc ent. of. the. laws. Part. B. funds. on. RTI. and. other. early-intervening. services,. and. to. use. RTI. as. one. part. of. a. comprehensive. evaluation. process. for. identifying. students. with. SLDs.. In. 2007,. just. 24. percent. of. R districts. reported. that. they. had. implemented. or. were. in. the. process. of. implementing.RTI. by. 2010,. this. had. risen. to. 61. percent. of. districts. 12 . Indeed,. SLD. may. be. the. disability. population. most. affected. by. early. interventions. like. RTI,. because. such. interventions. can. help. prevent. the. misidentification. and. mislabeling. of. struggling. studentswho. may. simply. learn. better. with. enhanced,. tailored. instructionas. students. with. SLDs.. At. the. same. time,. modifications. in. pedagogical. approach. and. lesson. planning. can. help. to. offset. the. challenges. faced. by. those. students. with. true. but. mild. SLDs.. 8 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS 6.SLD as a Proportion of Al l Students and All Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 completely STUDENTS Iowa 8. 42 7. 63 7. 41 STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Nevada Iowa 60. 37 47. 47 45. 06 42. 92 42. 78 42. 73 42. 11 42. 74 44. 25 45. 81 48. 11 Pennsylvania Rhode Island New Jersey Delaware Oklahoma New York 6. 43 6. 29 6. 17 6. 85 Pennsylvania Alabama Arizona Delaware Iowas SLD Trend True or False? New Hampshire South Carolina D. C. 6. 05 5. 99 5. 96 5. 92 5. 85 5. 73 5. 95 5. 97 South Carolina Oklahoma California Texas Utah I Florida Massachusetts Illinois Florida 42. 40 42. 09 41. 87 41. 21 Alaska Ohio Hawaii Montana Alaska D. C.New Mexico South Dakota Alabama Nevada Indiana 5. 48 5. 36 5. 13 5. 11 New Mexico New Hampshire United States New Jersey Ohio Illinois 40. 92 38. 88 38. 46 38. 16 37. 51 38. 87 39. 76 Michigan Montana 5. 03 5. 03 4. 97 5. 01 5. 05 Wyoming United States Arizona Oregon Utah Kansas Maine Rhode Island Tennessee New York Colorado 36. 68 Nebraska Hawaii 4. 89 4. 92 4. 93 4. 95 36. 4 3 36. 28 35. 53 36. 11 Michigan Washington 4. 82 4. 82 4. 75 Virginia South Dakota Oregon Kansas 34. 94 34. 53 33. 25 32. 06 31. 93 31. 36 31. 51 33. 16 34. 15 34. 57 35. 07 35. 22 West Virginia Vermont Virginia 4. 69 4. 59 4. 61 Massachusetts North Carolina Indiana.North Dakota Washington Wisconsin Missouri Tennessee California 4. 50 4. 38 4. 11 4. 47 4. 52 4. 31 North Dakota Mississippi Wisconsin Arkansas Vermont Georgia Maine Idaho Connecticut Maryland Nebraska North Carolina Connecticut Mississippi Maryland Arkansas 4. 08 4. 00 3. 99 3. 85 3. 70 3. 74 3. 87 4. 04 29. 99 29. 94 29. 36 29. 02 29. 15 29. 81 30. 63 Minnesota Colorado Texas Wyoming Louisiana Georgia Idaho 3. 60 3. 07 2. 97.West Virginia Minnesota Kentucky Louisiana Missouri 28. 69 28. 66 27. 86 13. 10 28. 94 owa. was. a. notable. exception. to. the. general. SLD. trend,. as. one. of. only. four. states. that. reported. an.increase. in. its. proportion. of. SLD. students. from. 2000-01. to. 2009-10.. The. Hawkeye. Sta te. illustrates. the. extent. to. which. data. reportingrather. than. actual. shifts. in. disability. incidencemay. affect. the. numbers. reported. to. the. public.. . At. 8. 4. percent,. Iowa. had. the. highest. rate. of. SLD. in. the. nation. for. 2009-10..However,. the. state. does. not. assign. particular. disability. categories. to. its. specialeducation. students. instead,. it. uses. a. single. eligible. individual. designation. for. all. students. with. disabilities.. To. meet. federal. disability. reporting. requirements,.which. call. for. population. counts. disaggregated. by. disability. category,. Iowa. examines. a. random. sample. of. Individualized. Education. Programs. (IEPs). each. year.. Reviewers. decide,. based. on. the. services. described. therein,. which. type. of. disability. is. likely. being. served. 13. Thus. Iowas. high. rate. of. SLD. relative. to. other. states. may. result. from. judgment. errors. made. by. IEP. reviewers,. who. examine. student. service s. rather. than. symptoms..Further. inaccuracy. could. arise. from. outdated. expectations. that. SLD. students. should. comprise. a. large. proportion. of. all. students.with. disabilities. Beyond. Iowas. high. SLD. rate,. the. state. also. reports. low. rates. of. autism. and. OHI,. and. each. of. these. rates. has. remained. relatively. stable. in. the. state. over. the. last. decade.. Given. that. national. SLD. numbers. have. been. dropping. considerably,. while. autism. and. OHI. numbers. are. rising. quickly,.Iowas. incidence. rates. may. simply. be. based. on. old. assumptions. Kentucky 0 2 4 6 8 10 2. 04 25. 25 0 20 40 60 80 SLD IDENTIFICATION RATE (%) SLD IDENTIFICATION RATE (%) 9 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION FI N DI NGS Personnel As. special-education. numbers. have.increased. over. the. last. few. decades,. only. recently. declining. for. the. first. time,. the. cost. of. educating. these. students. has. continued. to. increase. at. a. fast. rate.14. Becaus e. 85. percent. of. special-education. spending. supports. personnel,. special-education. staff. is. obviously. the. main. source. of. swelling. expenditures. 15 Schools. employ. a. diverse. range. of. professionals. to. teach,. support,. and. assist. their. students. with. disabilities.. In. addition. to. special-education. teachers. and. paraprofessionalsemployees. who. might. provide. one-on-one. tutoring,. assist. with. classroom.management,. conduct. parental-involvement. activities,. or. provide. instructional. support. under. the. supervision. of. a. teachera. school. might. retain. a. number. of. more. specialized. professionals. such. as.Audiologists,. speech. and. language. pathologists,. psychologists,. occupational. therapists,. physical. therapists,. social. workers,. and. more. 16. Because. shifts. in. these. populations. are. difficult. to. trace. over. time. (mostly. due. to. changes. in. federal. reporting. requirements),. this. analysis. focuses. on. teachers. and. paraprofessionals,. which. together. constitute. over. 80. percent. of. all.special-education. personnel.17 The. ratio. of. teachers. to. students. fluctuated. over. the. last. decade,. reaching. its. peak. in. 2005-06. and. declining. quickly. thereafter. (see. Figure. 7).. Public. schools. employed. sixty-five. special-education. teachers. per. thousand. special-education. students. in. 2000-01or. 412,000. teachers. overall. that. ratio. rose. to. seventy. per. thousand. in. 2005-06,. and. then. fell. to. sixty-three. per. thousandor. 405,000. teachers. overallby. 2008-09.. (Personnel. data. were. not. available. for. 2009-10. as. of. publication. ) In. contrast,. the. number. of. special-educati.