Editorial: The Quest for a Seamless Education

Federal legislation and the philosophies driving it are having a significant influence on how we educate American children, culminating in the recent No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Many educators have raised concerns about different aspects of the federal mandates. Among these, in my opinion, is the idea that one-size-fits-all criterion-referenced standardized testing can provide complete, valid, and reliable information. Another problem is the impossible goal that ALL children will read by third grade. This simply will not happen. Perhaps most significant of all is the fact that we are dealing with one more underfunded federal mandate that is even more far-reaching than the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which has never received the federal support called for since The Education of All Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975. The result has forced state and local educational systems to shoulder the financial burden of federal legislation without a commensurate federal financial commitment.

The list could go on, but we should acknowledge that federal legislation and the leadership of the Department of Education have also lead to improvements, both directly and indirectly. School systems and other organizations have been able to use legislation to strengthen existing programs and establish new initiatives. Although the final outcomes are not clear (if final outcomes ever occur!), American education clearly is taking on a more academic focus, with an emphasis on accountability and rigor. The federal government is trying to move the Head Start program to more of a concentration on reading and math. Charter schools are common in many states and controversial voucher programs may be established. More high school students are taking college-level Advanced Placement courses and there is an increase in the number of high school programs awarding the academically challenging International Baccalaureate degree.

In special education it is undeniable that federal involvement has led to improved educational services and outcomes over the past 30 years in terms of the numbers of children being served and their preparation to function effectively in society. By the time this editorial sees print, IDEA 1997 should be superceded by IDEA 2003, with some modifications dealing with Individualized Education Plans and reducing over-identification, but the major elements should be the same.

There is some talk in general education about the need for "seamless" educational programs. Primarily, this has addressed the range from kindergarten through 12th grade and discontinuities from elementary to middle (or junior high) to high school. Too often, this tripartite arrangement has resulted in three very different subsystems within one school district, with a lack of shared goals, and cooperation. The goal is to increase collaboration and erase these differences so that the transitions that children face will be less stressful and more productive. More recently there has been discussion about extending the seamless concept to include college (K-16), vocational training, and work.

Where does this leave deaf and hard of hearing children? Do they have access to advanced placement or special academic program options? What provisions are made for them for the transition from high school? Our goal should be to provide seamless educational and other services not for K-12, but from birth to work. In terms of legislation, NCLB, IDEA, and the Education of the Deaf Act (EDA) each provides some mechanism to facilitate reaching our goal. There are provisions for early identification and services for deaf children and their families. NCLB authorizes the Early Reading and Reading First programs for preschool through the third grade. IDEA mandates student-centered transition planning. EDA provides support for postsecondary training and education. The pieces are all there, but they are not in place as part of one system.

Our infant screening and early identification programs vary in quality from state to state and often within states. Usually there is little or no coordination between the identification programs and the educational systems serving our children and their families. Information is often contradictory. We have the same gaps...