Schools are dealing with a new challenge this year as they come up with creative ways to instruct special-needs children. Schools have one year left before strict teacher certification standards go into effect. The No Child Left Behind Act has forced schools to re-evaluate their approach with these students. Unless Congress clarifies the definition of “highly qualified” teachers in NCLB, schools have until July 2, 2006 to train or hire their special-education instructors.
Many teachers who specialize in special education do not hold certifications to teach regular education curriculum, even though in some cases they hold education masters degrees. The teachers are not “highly qualified,” according to the federal government. While they may be certified to deal with special-education students, they are not certified to teach standard curriculum. In that regard, they would not be technically qualified to evaluate the achievement of their students in those areas. Schools then either have to hire new teachers who are certified in both special education and regular education or they must adopt a new system that provides instruction from certified teachers.
This seems to rile people on all sides. Special-education teachers are frustrated that the federal government might not consider them highly qualified, while regular-education teachers fear they might be even more overburdened in the coming years.
Most regular-education teachers are not certified in special education, either, in which case the flip-flopping would still be counterproductive for the students. Many children affected by the policy have behavioral, emotional, or learning disabilities that could alter the dynamics of a traditional classroom.
A teacher might fear that while adding only one or two students to the overall class count, the extra time required to assist the new students could diminish her effectiveness with the rest of the class.
For this school year, most schools are sticking with the status quo. Both Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Wake County, the state’s largest school districts, are keeping special-education policies the same until the meaning of highly qualified is finally decided upon.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the main law that deals with special education, further muddles the picture. It was first passed in 1975 and reauthorized in 1997. As it turns out, the bill leaves licensure qualifications up to the states. NCLB standards, on the other hand, apply to every school district nationwide. IDEA has been up for reauthorization again by Congress since 2002, but it has been repeatedly delayed.
Bob Sturey, senior director for Special Education Services in Wake County, hopes Congress will clear up the discrepancy between IDEA and NCLB.
“We are hoping for flexibility in licensure of special-education teachers,” Sturey said. “Otherwise there might be a shortage in special-education teachers.”
Sturey concedes that in Wake County, and presumably other counties, following NCLB’s current definition of highly qualified might increase mainstreaming into regular education classrooms.
It would be a side issue, he said, but “if changes aren’t made, you will see more and more kids with severe disabilities in general education classrooms.” The issue will have more of an impact on secondary education, since its certifications are content-specific, Sturey said.
Primary educators are already certified to teach across curricula. If the state cannot hire enough highly qualified special educators for the secondary level, regular education teachers would see the influx in students with disabilities.
This potential increase in the number of mainstreamed students could end up highlightingthe disconnection between education, academics, and teachers. Due to the mainstreaming movement of the past 20 years, most special-education students already spend a substantial amount of time in general-education classrooms. Regular education teachers tend to have negative attitudes toward this policy, as it usually requires more energy with little support. Several studies, including one by Yona Leyser in 2001, document these negative attitudes. While Leyser, who is a professor at Northern Illinois University, supported main-streaming, she noted that many teachers are reluctant to accept the idea.
The basic idea of mainstreaming is to provide special-education students with an educational experience that does not segregate them from the rest of the students. Proponents argue that students should be grouped together as much as possible to create equal expectations for all students. In addition, many supporters of mainstream-ing and inclusion believe accommodations and changes in the classroom should be used to benefit the entire class. This requires the teacher to rethink his or her approach to education.
Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, and Spagna write in Remedial and Special Education that “the intention is to alter education for all students, benefiting not only students with disabilities but also those without disabilities.”
According to their research, mainstreaming has increased dramatically in recent times. “In 1998-99, 47% of students with disabilities were educated for 79% or more of the school day in general education settings, which is almost double the percentage served in the 1984-85 school year,” Burstein said.
While usage of mainstreaming has increased, the effectiveness of such policies does not seem to be clear. Burstein and others attribute the lack of significant results to the fact that teachers are not implementing the accommodations because they feel unprepared to deal with special-education students. Most assert that after further training these teachers would be more comfortable with the idea, yet this training does not appear to be occurring.
Now the usage of mainstreaming has increased while the negative attitudes from teachers have not gone away. James Kauffman points out that the policies have failed to live up to expectations. He notes in a recent edition of Phi Delta Kappan that mainstreaming policies may not be making the grade.
“The goal in special education seems to have become the appearance of normalization without the expectation of competence,” he writes. He argues that the obsession with accommodations may be crippling the educational abilities of special-education students. He writes, “[Parents] may protect their child by insisting on curricular modifications and accommodations in assignments, time, and testing.
But children learn by doing, and not allowing them to do something because they might fail is denying them the opportunity to succeed.”
NCLB could end up reopening the debate on the values of mainstreaming. Oddly enough, even the National Education Association has taken to this issue. The NEA strongly supports the qualification standards of IDEA, which leave certification issues up to the states.
The NEA uses even more uncharacteristic language by stating that special-education teachers “should be deemed ‘highly qualified’ special education teachers by meeting the requirements specifically related to special education and not the onerous ‘one-size-fits-all’ definition” of NCLB.
The criticism is heightened because of the requirement that special-education teachers not in compliance with certification standards be forced to send letters home to parents, notifying them that their child’s teacher is not highly qualified. Opponents of this policy, such as the NEA, believe this would diminish morale among these teachers.
Brian Gwyn is contributing writer of Carolina Journal.