Shifting Trends in Special Education Essay Example for Free

Shifting Trends in Special Education EssayThe Thomas B. Fordham demonstrate. is. the. solid grounds. 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,. working capital,. 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,. t o. 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. analogy. 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. Disability. Definitions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N special(a) teaching method EXECUTIVE SUMM ARY Executive Summary Speci al. education. 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. (IDEA). 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 . students. 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. consti tuted. 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,. new-sprung(prenominal). York,. and.Massachusetts. 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. parap rofessionals. 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. Mou nt. Olive. School. District,. 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. drift. 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. to es. into. the. turbid. waters. 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. state s. and. include. all. children. 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. Dige st. 2 SH I FTI NG TREN DS I N SPECIAL EDUCATION I NTRODUCTION Its. our. hope. that. the. next. iteration. of. that. fair play. 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. de sperately. 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. special-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,. falli ng. to. 13. 1. percent. of. 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. populatio n. can. be. attributed. to. 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.Other. 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. defin itions. 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 False? ).. 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. with. 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. idiosyncrasiesco nfuse. trend. analyses. 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 aroused Disturbance amiable Retardation particular proposition Learning Disability Speech 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. disa bility. vary. among. state. populations,. or. to. which. some. states. over-identify. or. under-identify. students. with. disabilities. 10 3 Identification Rates 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 AVERAGE 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. decrea se. of. about. 47,000. 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 intensify 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 westerly Virginia Vermont Pennsylvania inch New Jersey Wyoming New York Minnesota Ohio 16. 66 16. 84 16. 55 16. 52 15. 60 15. 55 15. 57 15. 74 mho Dakota North Dakota Kentucky New Hampshire Delaware Kentucky Illinois New Hampshire Michigan Massachusetts northeastward conspiracy 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 Oregon Illinois D. C. 14. 64 14. 34 14. 15 14. 58 0. 46 0. 52 Wisconsin genus 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 southwestern Carolina Michigan Alaska Iowa Florida 14. 09 14. 06 13. 98 13. 79 13. 55 13. 14 13. 99 13. 94 United States -0. 04 -0. 26 -0. 28 -0. 53 -0. 61 -0. 61 -0. 20 New Mexico Arkansas Virginia Montana 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 Connecticut 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 Georgia Florida Rhode Island Connecticut atomic num ber 13 Arizona Nevada California 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 Alabama -2. 32 -2. 98 -3. 5 -1. 75 0 1. 75 3. 5 -2. 52 -2. 01 DISABILITY realisation 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. national. 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. identificatio n. of. most. other. disabilities. thus,. SLD. identification. is. perhaps. more. affected. by. related. changes. in. policy,. budget,. personnel,. etc. 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. stud ents. 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. percent. 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 a s a Proportion of All Students and All Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10 ALL 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. 43 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. State. 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. stud ent. services. 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. rat e.14. Because. 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. te achers. 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.