Escape From Special Education
�Lena�s experience on escape from special education�: �I was bored with it. I was getting straight A�s on everything. The work was just too easy. I didn�t like it because it was too easy�� �the teachers would always tell me that I�d have to work hard in those classes [regular classes] and that I�d have to be more prepared than I was� [�] My teachers always told me in grade school and mid school, �I don�t want you leaving special ed, you�re the best student we have in here� � you know � because I made straight A�s. And so it just scared me� [�] Although Lena ultimately left special education and succeeded in the highschool inclusion block, her struggle to shed an identity framed by incapacity, incompetence, and insecurity supports Tomlinson�s (1982, 1995) critique of the �benevolent humanitarianism� frequently disguised as intervention in special educations professional practices.� (Knowledge & Power in the Global Economy; Politics & The Rhetoric of School Reform, David a. Gabbard, 2000, p. 114)
�School divisions have perverse incentives to maximize special needs dollars under present funding formulas, yet nobody knows whether the extra money is being successfully directed since divisions are not required to demonstrate results from receiving additional funds. Almost half of this funding can be dedicated to programs that have nothing to do with special education activities. Unsurprisingly, special education spending is up 300% compared to 50% for all funding since 1984�� �Children with physical or mental handicaps are currently classified into three levels. The first � which in theory includes those with IQs under 50, a significant disability � brings a division only $260 a year per pupil in additional resources. Levels II and III � which cover individuals with severe and very severe handicaps and combinations of them � triggers much more generous outlays, at about $8,500 and $19,000 per capita respectively. In no cases are divisions required to demonstrate results from receiving additional funds... [�] The problem is not a local one. Our litigious neighbors to the south live under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), a federal mandate with equally perverse incentives. Classify a child as �disabled� and more funds start to flow. �Special ed� there has become a dumping ground for students with all sorts of behavioral problems, often those from disadvantaged backgrounds who are not disabled at all but merely difficult to teach. But the funds are almost never tied to results�[�] However, divisions may soon be at risk from an unexpected source. British Columbia�s Human Rights Tribunal is about to rule in the case of a student with dyslexia who failed to learn to read in a public school that didn�t apply its budget to teaching the child effectively.� (http://www.fcpp.org/publication_detail.php?PubID=602 June 2003)
In the United States, �Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, supplemental educational services [tutoring students in underperforming schools] are funded by school districts with a portion of their allocation from the U.S. Department of Education. Georgia was early to implement its program; most states were just getting on board during the 2003�04 academic year. States first approve a group of tutoring providers. Then districts draw up their own contract with a subset of those providers; districts themselves can also serve as providers. Once the districts notify parents of their options, parents can enroll with a provider [�Some of those students jumped as many as three grade levels.�] of their choosing. Within this new marketplace, school districts hold enormous power as a result of their dual role�as both program administrator and potential provider. Districts also have little incentive to inform parents of the money available to them for tutoring, since districts get to keep any unused funds. Some providers allege that districts are not actually setting aside the money as required by law. �We�ve seen districts where the federal per-pupil allocation says it�s $1,800 and the district will say it�s $1,100,� said one provider. �What happens to that other $700?� The district�s dual role also gives rise to a conflict of interest. The concern is that districts enjoy an unfair advantage over other providers because of their direct access to parents. Jeffrey Cohen, president of Catapult Learning (the tutoring firm formerly known as Sylvan Education Solutions), says that he has seen letters sent out by the district that automatically sign children up for the district�s program unless the parent affirmatively decides to go with a different provider. �There�s not a level playing field,� he says. To overcome these obstacles, most large providers are going around the districts by beefing up their own marketing efforts. Some providers, like Catapult Learning, are running ads and touting their programs with leaflets or promoters who go door-to-door, to shopping malls, and, when allowed, to the school. [�] It has been difficult to get a handle on the scope of the market for publicly funded tutoring created by the No Child Left Behind Act because the program is new and has so many moving parts. According to the U.S. Department of Education, private firms represented 72 percent of providers as of spring 2004. Of all providers, 6 percent were faith-based institutions and 10 percent were online tutoring firms. About a quarter of the providers were part of the public school system. Within a given state, public schools represent anywhere from zero to 80 percent of the providers. Likewise, among the states, online providers compose anywhere from zero to 47 percent of the available options.� (Selling Supplemental Services, http://www.educationnext.org/20044/30.html)
[Use of Manipulatives] "Students with special needs who use manipulatives in their mathematics classes outperform similar students who do not. Manipulatives support the tactile and spatial reinforcement of mathematical concepts, maintain focus, and help students develop the cognitive structures necessary for understanding arithmetic relationships..." (p.145)
[Search For Patterns] "One of the more surprising resarch findings is that many children with learning disabilities - including those with mathematical disorders - can learn basic arithmetic concepts. What is needed for these children is an approach that relies less on intensive drill and practice and more on searching for, finding, and using patterns in learning the basic number combination and arithmetic strategies..." (p.145)
[Build on Student Strength] "Teachers can often turn a student's failure into success if they build on what the student already knows how to do. Too often teachers get so focused on looking for ways to improve an area of weakness that they unintentionally overlook an individual's learning strengths..." (p.145) (How the Special Needs Brain Learns, David A. Sousa, 2001, p.145)