Special Education in the 21st Century: Issues of Inclusion and Reform

Introduction

58 Education Reform and Inclusion organized at the school level. School improvement plans and provisions to participate in schoolwide Title I programs that attempt to more flexibly use funds from multiple funding streams are evident in both state and federal policy. Within special education, census-based funding and the removal of the incidental benefit rule are important ways to ensure that schools can provide an array of services and avoid the costly and often meaningless activity of trying to determine who is eligible for a service. These efforts are particularly critical given the overlap in characteristics between many students with disabilities and other high-risk or academically underachieving students. To date, at least one state, Vermont, which has experience with such funding flexibility, has demonstrated that the approach does not result in lowered achievement for any student with a disability (Parrish 1997). Yet there are a number of concerns about overall loss of funds and loss of program identity in such blended approaches (McLaughlin and Verstegen 1998; Verstegen 1996). Increased Accountability Within this same vein, as accountability becomes more “high stakes” (i.e., more consequences, such as school reconstitution or linking assessment results to high school diplomas), many wonder if some students, particularly low-achieving students and students with disabilities, will be harmed. Although these high-stakes accountability concerns have not been a particular problem within states that have minimum competency high school tests, it is a potential issue as the assessments and curricula linked to such competency tests are increasingly academic and require higher levels of knowledge and skills (McDonnell, McLaughlin, and Morison 1997). The larger reforms are driven by the challenge of improving the performance of all students within the same challenging curriculum. Only through experience with assessments and through increased opportunities for students with disabilities to access the general education curriculum will we be able to ground our expectations. For this reason, a recent committee of the National Academy of Sciences (McDonnell, McLaughlin, and Morison 1997) recommended that students with disabilities be part of a universal accountability system based on performance of all students. However, the committee recommended that the data be carefully monitored until there is more data on the actual performances of these and other low-achieving students. Continued Litigation Undoubtedly, many of the critical factors that will drive changes in special education policy are still to be defined through the judicial process. An overreliance on the courts for the resolution of special education due process issues may be stemmed somewhat by the increasing use of mediation. By 1994, thirty-nine states had adopted some type of special education mediation system (Ahearn 1994). The 1997 IDEA amendments require states to provide mediation as an al- 59 Defining U.S. Special Education ternative procedure to resolve disputes. Mediation approaches that incorporate principles of good-faith conflict resolution strategies—including confidentiality, flexible structure, and mutual problem solving—have been effective at reducing the emotional, financial, and administrative costs of due process hearings and subsequent court proceedings (Schrag 1996). Nevertheless, litigation will continue to play a major role in shaping national special education policy. Among the concepts that are likely to be influenced and further refined by litigation is the “appropriateness” standard. Although the concept of individually referenced decision making through the IEP process will likely remain a cornerstone of a student’s right to an appropriate education, the standards for determining what is appropriate will become more consistent. As states develop standards, the legality of determinations about appropriateness must be considered. Despite some disagreement among legal observers, the Rowley Supreme Court decision may provide clear guidance for defining an appropriate education for students with disabilities under standards-based reform (McDonnell, McLaughlin, and Morison 1997). Under the Rowley standards, a free and appropriate public education should be defined by state standards and should be designed to provide educational benefit. The new educational environment that is defined by content and performance standards and high-stakes assessments may provide fertile legal ground for those advocating on behalf of special education students who are not making progress toward the standards. Contributing to these definitions of appropriateness are the recent fiscal equity cases in general education that are attempting to establish an adequacy standard to equity, meaning that districts are entitled to enough resources to ensure that all students or some proportion of them are meeting state performance standards. Although far from definitive, these cases are pointing to new concepts of what will be considered an appropriate education for a student with...