What Does the Future Hold for Special Education Teachers? (Part 4)

This final piece focuses on the more immediate future. All three previous pieces (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3) describe future scenarios in which special education teachers might become marginalized by policy or technology. These changes could be coming, but not just yet. Special education teachers will continue to have a vital and familiar role in schools for many years.

The Horizon Remains Distant

Those seeking to teach students with disabilities will find opportunities.

1. Jobs still are available.

Schools continue to hire special education teachers—plenty of them. Special education is a high-needs area and by most accounts will remain that way long enough for several cohorts of college graduates to find jobs. What about all those factors set to affect the role of special education teachers? They’re coming, but something else is happening and isn’t likely to stop: turnover.

Special education is a demanding career. People quit. Certain schools with large proportions of students receiving services are difficult places to work. More people quit in these schools. Certainly, new positions are created per population growth and a corresponding growth in students needing services, but turnover allows for positions to be available even after being filled just a year or two earlier. Add to this the apparently shrinking pool of undergraduates seeking to become teachers and you have a market in which jobs continue to be out there.

Safeguards exist, too. Thanks to teacher-student ratio mandates on caseloads, many special education positions are protected from budget cuts. In some states, special education teachers are hired from a different budget than general education teachers, which additionally helps to protect these positions. Unless these ratios change through legislation, many positions will be protected out of legal necessity.

Finally, don’t forget about the Baby Boomers who are retiring. That wave started a few years ago. Members of Generation X are still a long way off from retirement, but many have left the field by now out of frustration, leaving positions available for younger candidates and second-career types.

2. Schools will be slow to make changes.

Little happens quickly in schools. They aren’t known for being crucibles of change. Education law has a way of reacting to issues rather than anticipating them, and schools have a way of dragging themselves to comply with laws. If something is a recommendation rather than a mandate, don’t count on schools subscribing to it with any haste. For example, RtI models have existed for decades at this point and some schools are just now beginning to explore how to use these. Thus, some of the changing services I described in Part 1 aren’t going to materialize anytime soon in a way that drastically will cut into hiring. Delivery models will remain as they’ve been in many districts well into the next decade.

3. Students continue being identified.

Specific disability categories under IDEA have been growing, especially autism and other health impairments (ADHD falls under OHI). Questions remain as to whether these increases are due to actual increases in proportionate incidence, better evaluation tools, or overreactions by evaluating teams. Meanwhile, for every parent who opposes an evaluation because of a concern for the stigma identification might bring, another demands an evaluation and wants every possible service. Often the parent is right and the child needs something the school has been reluctant to provide. Other times, schools concede and placate the parents to avoid further legal entanglement. 

The reasons don’t matter for special education teachers looking for positions. They just need to know that growth (or at least stability) in identification means more potential teaching positions, even if these are with highly specific populations. 

4. And charters remain an option.

Those who want to teach students with disabilities do need to consider all the places where those students receive services. Urban districts have larger than average special needs populations, thus more special education jobs. Charter schools are most common in urban areas. Over the next decade, a larger percentage of the total population will attend charters. Prospective special education teachers willing to keep all options open must remember this.

I make no claim that this series of possibilities is exhaustive or certain. Some of it seems quite likely, but how any of it plays out could be much different than expected. Feel free to comment with any other ideas about what special education teachers might face in the near or not-so-near future.

What Does the Future Hold for Special Education Teachers? (Part 4)

What Does the Future Hold for Special Education Teachers? (Part 2)

This installment continues my discussion of what special education teachers might face in the coming years. Part 2 examines larger scale changes to policy and protocol. See the first part here.

Changing Conditions

Working conditions for special education teachers will be shaped by forces beyond the walls of schools.

4. Defunding reduces resources.

Anyone aware of special education’s history knows that IDEA has been funded at a fraction of what originally had been envisioned. As of this writing, IDEA has not lost funding per the first budget of the Trump era. That doesn’t mean the current Department of Education won’t look for roundabout ways to scale back IDEA in the coming years. Should this happen, money available for interventions, testing materials, and even paraprofessional support could be in jeopardy. Such cuts are speculative right now, though. Cuts to Title II, which would affect funding for professional development rather immediately, are less speculative. Also quite real are attempts by state departments of education to cap percentages of students receiving services (Texas, for example).

5. Paths to certification become muddier.

The traditional path to teacher certification has included a Bachelor’s program in education (getting certified through a Master’s program could count here as well). This path has splintered to include alternates available through online universities and what amount to be internships or residencies through organizations such as Teach for America or Relay. Urban districts have been offering emergency certification paths for years in states that will condone these. Some states allow charters to employ high percentages of uncertified teachers or teachers with non-traditional types of certifications.

These paths still result in certifications, but they could change prospects for teachers following traditional paths. Those teachers going the way of a Bachelor’s in education might find themselves getting pinched out of jobs in schools that rely heavily on alternate certification paths to fill vacancies (think large urban districts and charter schools). This affects all teachers, but since urban schools employ a disproportionately large number of special education teachers, it hits them hardest.

In the same category would be the relative complexity of that traditional path. Some states have made certification more complicated and specific for special education teachers in recent years. This increase is meant to act as a filter, ensuring high-quality teacher candidates. It has worked too well in some colleges of education, resulting in a dearth of students making it to teacher candidacy. The testing requirements alone have caused some universities to consider shuttering their teacher preparation programs per the low number of students passing the tests.

6. Continued legal strife makes the field unwieldy.

The past few years have seen a decrease in the number of special education cases going to due process. Much of that drop has resulted from significant drops in a handful of specific states, but it’s still a drop. Schools could be getting better at complying with IDEA and various state regulations. Parents also might be catching on to the lack of actual damages that can be recouped through due process (in other words, they don’t get a cash settlement, which surprisingly isn’t obvious to all parents).

This doesn’t mean special education is now free of consternation. Consider the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas County Schools and the prospect of reexamining educational benefit. The precedent set by this case seems poised to give parents more opportunities to apply pressure to schools on issues of service and progress. Schools could find themselves tripping over this precedent for years as they struggle to figure out how to satisfy educational benefit for low-incidence students. Attorneys representing parents are likely grinning. Administrators and special education teachers should be at least somewhat wary. The risk of inadvertently discriminating against a student isn’t going away.

In the next section, I’ll talk about broader societal and even scientific changes that could rock the very existence of special education.

What Does the Future Hold for Special Education Teachers? (Part 2)

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit, Pt. 2

Back in January, I wrote about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. The US Supreme Court recently reached a unanimous decision in the case, siding with the family. Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools caught national attention earlier this year, partly because of a cute dog. This latest decision became attached to Neil Gorsuch’s Senate testimony per his ruling in a similar case. Both cases briefly stirred headlines for reasons other than their importance in special education.

Endrew F. eclipses Fry in potential magnitude. The core of the case is educational benefit. Must schools ensure students with IEPs simply make some measurable progress, or must they prove this progress is meaningful? The Supreme Court has found something closer to the latter, with the ruling mandating schools must prove students are making appropriate progress per each student’s circumstance. Although the difference might seem subtle, the scope is enormous. Future special education teachers will study this case as undergraduates.

“Appropriate progress” will be the focus of case-by-case deliberation, but it’s a leap from the previous requirement of schools to demonstrate discernible growth within a student’s program. The new implication suggests there is an acceptable range of progress for each student. Defining this range could be difficult. Some families will reject any deterministic range based on evaluation findings that the schools offer. Some might interpret “appropriate progress” as needing to be aligned with age and grade level progress. Such a conception of progress would be ideal, but in many cases would belie the range of abilities that led to a special education evaluation. Regardless, the built-in controversy seems to forecast a bumper crop of due process hearings.

As with Fry, advocates have heralded the decision in Endrew F. as a victory for students with disabilities. I wonder if it will be. My prediction is the same schools that currently struggle to meet the requirements of IDEA and of existing IEPs will continue to struggle. Now families will have more leverage to come after these schools for compensatory education when students fail to make “appropriate (and possibly unrealistic) progress.” I suspect this ruling will do at least as much to create additional settlements as it will to help students with disabilities get better at reading, writing, or doing math. It certainly will increase pressure on schools and might set some up to lose.

Any thoughts from readers? How will IEP teams define “appropriate?” To what degree will this decision shift special education in practice and even in concept? Does anyone else see this as a path to increased litigation? Share your insights in the comments.

 

 

 

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit, Pt. 2

Discussion Starter: Possible Repercussions of Fry v. Napoleon?

Often when special education practice or protocol change because of a precedent-setting legal case, the public scarcely pays attention. In mid-February, a case made its way to the Supreme Court and then through the news cycle, getting a handful of people talking along the way. For the most part, the ensuing conversation was about incidental factors rather than about the actual issue before the Court. I’m wondering just what the longterm effects of the Court’s decision will be.

To any readers unfamiliar with the case, Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools examined whether or not families must exhaust recourses available through IDEA before seeking damages for discrimination via other laws. The case also involved a young girl with cerebral palsy and her service dog, a photogenic Goldendoodle. Most people will remember the case being about the school denying a service (and an adorable, fluffy service) to this girl. It really wasn’t about that.

True, its genesis was the school’s denial of the girl’s use of the service dog on campus. With paraprofessionals in place to meet the girl’s needs, administrators saw the dog as unnecessary. The family eventually pulled their daughter and placed her in a school that would allow the dog. This wasn’t before the moment that generated a discrimination suit.

In an effort to determine whether or not the dog could assist the girl as the family claimed, staff had the girl demonstrate how the dog could help her in a bathroom. She didn’t have to use the bathroom in front of staff, but instead she had to show the dog’s capacity to assist her physically. Per the family and their attorney, the scenario was invasive and humiliating enough to warrant a discrimination suit seeking emotional damages.

District Court dismissed this. The reason? The family hadn’t followed due process through IDEA before seeking damages. Such emotional damage suits aren’t within IDEA’s scope, as it deals with issues of access. Regardless, the decision stood. The parents appealed.

The Supreme Court heard the case in the fall and issued their decision this winter. They sided with the family, stating the need to go through IDEA due process shouldn’t apply in situations that involve emotional damage claims and other similar forms of discrimination.

What will this mean for various stakeholders? Perspective matters here. My experience in special education suggests this could become a new area of disability law for attorneys to exploit. Parents of children with disabilities might have greater leverage from which to seek emotional damages in various instances of perceived discrimination. Potentially any situations in which schools allegedly single out children with disabilities could be claimed as spurring an emotional hardship. Limits would exist of course, as some students end up being singled out at times per the delivery of their IEPs. Still, parents might be more encouraged to pursue damages knowing fewer hurdles exist per this precedent. I could see this becoming expensive for schools.

The other perspective to take would be to see this as a victory for parents and for children with disabilities. Another protection against discrimination could emerge from Fry, thus holding schools accountable in instances of genuine wrongdoing. It may clear some of the confusion over how to redress such wrongdoings. Instead of looking at this as a new way for schools to lose, one could look at it as a way to keep schools in check, and thus improve services.

What do my readers think? Will this case be a precedent-setter? Will it lead to the increase in discrimination suits I predict? Do you see it as more of a loss for schools or as a victory for families? Share your thoughts in the comments.

 

 

 

 

Discussion Starter: Possible Repercussions of Fry v. Napoleon?

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit?

Last week, the US Supreme Court began hearing a case regarding one of special education’s trickiest corners: educational benefit. Parents and schools have clashed over the concept for decades. The essential question involves how much benefit students with disabilities are expected to, even entitled to receive from their education. Take a moment to consider how nuanced this question is. Should the expectation simply be that students make at least some progress? How will the acceptable level of progress be quantified? Is there any definitive way to prove a lack of progress is the fault of the school?

The case in question concerns a student with ASD and ADHD not making progress in a public school. The parents sent him to a private school, at which he allegedly made progress. The family wants the district to pay for the placement. Such requests are fairly common. The key to the case will be proving the student wasn’t making progress at the public school due to some lacking on the part of that school, thus making the placement at the private necessary for educational benefit. Also before the court is the issue of what should be considered an acceptable level of progress. Was the student reaching this? Was providing access to an appropriate curriculum enough, or did the school have to ensure a certain echelon of performance? If so, what should that be? 

Many advocates push for schools to ensure meaningful progress. This will be difficult to define. A student with a severe intellectual disability and a sensory impairment will have a different capacity for growth than that of a student with a learning disability who is also gifted. If meaningful progress is quantified and applied to schools via precedent or even an eventual adjustment to IDEA, what is that going to mean for schools that are barely able to keep enough paraprofessionals in their building to help students go to the bathroom? Will schools be expected to move beyond the notion of simply providing access to FAPE and towards an expectation of the best possible educational opportunity? What happens when students, despite a school’s best effort, still make insufficient progress? Will pending adjustments result in better educational outcomes, or simply an increase in due process cases schools in which schools have little means of defense?

I turn the matter to my readers. Should schools be lashed to a requirement for meaningful educational benefit? What should be the definition of “meaningful?” How will it differ from the current expectation of progress being noted during an IEP term? I don’t think any issue in special education is as wrought with controversy. I look forward to your comments.

Discussion Starter: Educational Benefit?

Understanding Alternate Assessments (Repost from KokuaNetwork.com)

Here is an article I wrote for KokuaNetwork.com about alternate standardized assessments used with students with IEPs. Visit KokuaNetwork.com for a variety of resources for parents of students with special needs.

http://kokuanetwork.com/understanding-alternate-assessments/

Understanding Alternate Assessments (Repost from KokuaNetwork.com)

5 Points Students With Disabilities Should Know about Their IEPs (Repost from IAcheiveLearning.com)

This week’s repost from iAchieveLearning.com outlines the big ideas students with disabilities should understand about their IEPs.

https://iachievelearning.com/2016/02/5-points-students-with-disabilities-should-know-about-their-ieps/

5 Points Students With Disabilities Should Know about Their IEPs (Repost from IAcheiveLearning.com)