Children in
Special Education
Eugene M. Lewit
Linda Schuurmann Baker
T
wenty-five years ago educational services for children with disabilities
were frequently fragmented, underfunded, highly segregated, and
unreliable. Public schools were often ill prepared and unwilling to
provide special and necessary services to children with disabilities. Over the
past two decades, efforts to provide an appropriate education for children
with disabilities in America—through a series of state statutes, federal court
cases, and federal laws—have led to the development of a large special
edu-cation system to address the needs of these children. This journal issue
focuses on the development of that special education system and examines
its components, its strengths and weaknesses, and the areas in which
improvement is needed. This Child Indicators article examines some of the
key federal statistics on the provision of special education services for
chil-dren with disabilities.
Statistics have played a part in shaping special education policy. A
high-light of congressional hearings in the 1970s was the finding that 2.5 million
children with disabilities in this country were not receiving an education
appropriate to their needs, while almost 2 million others were receiving no
education at all.
1As described by Martin and Martin in this journal issue,
congressional response to such statistical evidence of underservice of the
disabled included passage of Public Law 94–142, the Education of All
Handicapped Children Act, which required that all students with disabilities
receive a free public education appropriately tailored to their individual
needs. A key element of this statute and its successors was that federal
fund-ing be provided to states for special education services based on state reports
of the number of students with disabilities receiving special education and
related services. This and other aspects of federal legislation have fostered
the development of a data collection system to monitor the provision of
spe-cial education services to disabled students by local and state educational
agencies.
Eugene M. Lewit, Ph.D., is director of research and grants for economics at the Center for the Future of Children.
Linda Schuurmann Baker, M.P.H., is a research analyst at the Center for the Future of Children.
The Future of Children SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Vol. 6 • No. 1 – Spring 1996
CHILD
INDICATORS
Education Programs (OSEP) on the identification and classification of
spe-cial education students. These data are used throughout this journal issue,
but a key question raised in this article is whether these data can be used to
determine if the special education system is adequately and appropriately
serving the nation’s population of disabled children. The analysis suggests
that the OSEP count data, by themselves, do not indicate how many
chil-dren have disabilities and what types of disabilities they have; and although
the data quantify the number of children receiving services, they cannot be
used to evaluate whether the services received are appropriate for those
chil-dren’s needs.
The federal data do, however, show large variations in the numbers and
proportions of children who are served in special education programs over
time and across jurisdictions. OSEP data indicate a large increase in the
number of children served in special education programs since the 1976–77
school year. Much of the increase appears to be the result of an increase in
the number of children classified as having specific learning disabilities, a
classification that is not well defined and is under considerable debate.
Despite the overall growth trend, the proportion of children who are in
spe-cial education varies by state, from 5% of children in spespe-cial education in
Hawaii to 11% in Massachusetts. In addition, different states use different
classification systems to describe children in special education programs.
Because of these differences, population-based data on the prevalence of
disabilities among children would be helpful in determining the actual
number of children who might benefit from special education services. The
prevalence data could be compared with the OSEP count data to assess in
gross terms the adequacy of special education services delivered to children
with disabilities. But because of methodological problems, available
nation-al surveys do not provide reliable information on the prevnation-alence of
differ-ent conditions.
Data on Special Education
Most nationally representative information on identification and classification in special education comes from administrative data collected by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the United States Department of Education. Data are collected as part of the requirement under the federal formula grant programs for special educa-tion. Until late in 1994, the two major formu-la grant programs reformu-lated to special educa-tion—the Part B State Grant Program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Public Law 94–142) and Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—were administered separately. As a result, until 1995 federal data on partici-pation in special education were collected in two separate streams, and the data were com-bined each year in a report to Congress.2
Children in special education, as repre-sented by OSEP data, are those who have individualized education programs (IEPs) and participate in special education pro-grams designated for the disabled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, the OSEP data do not include children served in Title 1 compen-satory education programs for the disadvan-taged or those nondisabled low achievers receiving remedial education. Moreover, the data do not include all disabled children because some children who are found to be disabled are determined not to be in need of special education services.3
Federal special education legislation (including the IDEA and ESEA) requires that each state educational agency conduct an annual count of the number of children
served on December 1 of each year and send the results to the Office of Special Education Programs.4Each state collects the data to
sat-isfy this reporting requirement in its own way—Hawaii, for example, routinely keeps information on all children in special educa-tion at the state level, while other states receive summary reports from individual school districts or schools. The summary reports generally include the number of chil-dren served, broken down by disability cate-gory (with the exception of preschool-age children),5 educational setting, and other
related variables. Because federal grants for the following year are allotted based on the count of the number of children in special education programs, states are motivated to count each child who is receiving services. However, the details of the OSEP counts, such as the number of children with specific disabilities discussed below, are not tied to federal funding so reporting is likely to be less consistent across states.6
Each year, states are asked to report the number of children identified in each of the 13 IDEA disability categories and receiving special education services. These categories represent the disabled children who are entitled to special education under the IDEA. The 13 categories are:
1. Specific learning disability 2. Speech or language impairment 3. Mental retardation
4. Serious emotional disturbance 5. Multiple disabilities
6. Hearing impairment 7. Deafness
8. Orthopedic impairment 9. Other health impairment 10. Visual impairment or blindness 11. Autism
12. Traumatic brain injury 13. Deaf-blindness
OSEP provides disability classifications to be used in reporting and in determining eligibility for services. However, federal legis-lation does not require the use of standard disability categories in states’ internal tions, and there are variations in the opera-tional definitions of disability categories used by states.7Massachusetts, for example, does
not collect data on which children fall into which disability category because the state uses only a single category for all children
with disabilities. The state, however, provides OSEP with estimates for the proportion of children in special education by disability cat-egory.6Most states use the federal categories
only to determine eligibility and use other criteria (such as measurements of the child’s level of functioning in a classroom setting) to determine which services a child receives. Reporting of children in the disability cate-gories may also be inconsistent because of state level financial incentives. Some states provide different amounts of funding to school districts for children in different dis-ability categories.8This practice provides the
school districts with an incentive to classify children in higher yield groups.
Changes in the Number of
Children Served
During the 1993–94 academic year, more than 5.3 million children from birth through 21 years of age received special edu-cation, according to data compiled by OSEP. Since 1976–77, the first year for which data on children served in special education under federal statutes was reported by OSEP, the number of children served annu-ally has increased by 1.6 million, almost 45%.9Figure 1 presents data on the number
of children served in selected disability cate-gories from 1976 to 1993 and illustrates the persistent annual increase in the number of children served in special education
pro-grams. The substantial growth in the num-ber of children served cannot be explained by growth in the population of children overall. In 1993–94, approximately 7.7% of all children in school received special edu-cation services compared with 4.5% in 1976–77, an increase of about 70%.10
The increase in the number of children served is almost completely attributable to the growth in the number of children classi-fied as having specific learning disabilities (SLDs), as shown in Figure 1. The number of children served in the other 12 categories actually declined between 1976–77 and
Since 1976–77, the number of children
served annually has increased by 1.6 million,
almost 45%.
Sources: 1976 to 1989: National Center for Education Statistics. 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. T.D. Snyder, ed. Washington, DC: NCES, January 1993, p. 44, Table 12; 1990 and 1991: National Center for Education Statistics. The condition of education. Washington, DC: NCES, 1994, p. 301, Table 45–1 (includes children ages 0 to 5); 1992: Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994, p. 9, Table 1.4; p. 41, Table 2.5; and p. 52, Figure 2.1; 1993: Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Seventeenth annual report to Congress.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 1995, Table AA14, Table AA1 (0 to 5).
Number of Children up to Age 21 in Special Education
Programs by Disability Category, 1976 to 1993
Data on this graph come from the Office of Special Education Programs and show both the increase in the number of children receiving special education services and the change in their classification over time. The decrease between 1986 and 1987 in all of the categories except preschool occurs because, prior to 1987, preschool and younger children receiving special education services were counted in the individual categories, but in 1987 they were assigned a separate category.
■ Since 1976–77, the number of children served annually has increased by 1.6 million, almost 45%.
■ The increase in the number of children served is almost completely attributable to
the growth in the number of children classified as having specific learning disabilities. 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 Number of Children Year Other disability Mental retardation
Seriously emotionally disturbed
Speech or language impairment Specific learning disability
1993–94, while the number of children receiving services for SLD went from just under 800,000 in 1976–77 to 2.4 million in 1993–94, an increase of 1.6 million, or 200%. Students with specific learning dis-abilities now account for more than half of all disabled children served and more than 5% of all students ages 6 through 17 enrolled in school.11
On its surface, the substantial increase in the number of children served in special education in the years following the enact-ment of several pieces of key federal legisla-tion suggests that the legislalegisla-tion is working as designed to increase access to special services for disabled students. However, the substantial shifts in the identification of chil-dren with different disabilities and particu-larly the substantial growth in the number of children diagnosed with specific learning disabilities and the decline in the number of children in other categories have led many to view the data with skepticism.
To use data such as those reported annu-ally by OSEP to assess whether children with disabilities are being served by the educa-tional system, it is necessary to have estimates of the true prevalence of various disabilities in the population. It is difficult to determine the prevalence of specific learning disabili-ties, however, because there is a lack of con-sensus on clear, observable, measurable, and reliable criteria for identification of children with learning disabilities. In this environ-ment of ambiguity about the meaning of the SLD classification, G. Reid Lyon in this jour-nal issue, and others elsewhere, have identi-fied several factors that may have led to the substantial increase in the number of chil-dren in the SLD category.12Some of these
factors may represent systemic and sociopo-litical responses to a generally heightened focus on children with disabilities. These fac-tors include ambiguity in the definition of learning disabilities, which can be manipu-lated to change prevalence numbers in response to financial incentives, advocacy, or political activities; inadequately prepared teachers who may overrefer children for spe-cial services they feel unable to provide; and attempts to apply more acceptable labels in the identification process.13
Lyon presents evidence to suggest that recent research on learning disabilities has
provided new information for those identify-ing children with learnidentify-ing disabilities, which may account for part of the increase in the number of children in learning disabilities programs, particularly for reading disabili-ties (one of the seven academically defined categories of specific learning disabilities). The new, more rigorously performed studies also may have led to a heightened awareness of reading SLD by professionals and parents resulting in increased efforts to identify and refer children with reading disabilities, thus increasing their numbers.
Recent research suggests that reading dis-abilities may affect as much as 17% of school-aged children.14If this prevalence estimate is
correct, it may be that many are still not being served despite the substantial growth in the number of children in programs for
the learning disabled.15 In addition, this
research indicates that children with reading disabilities may simply be those who have the most problems reading and that they have only slightly more problems than other chil-dren who are not identified as reading dis-abled. In other words, children with reading disabilities do not aggregate together to form a distinct group separate from the rest of children. Because the decision about where to draw the line demarcating reading disability is a subjective one, identification and provision of services to children with reading disabilities is very much a function of the specific criteria developed to identify children with the disability. Variation in these criteria over time and cross-sectionally can lead to considerable variability in the num-ber of children served.
Geographic Variation in
Identification
Evidence of variability in the proportion of children served in special education pro-grams is found in Figure 2, which shows
Students with specific learning disabilities
now account for more than half of all
disabled children served and more than
5% of all students ages 6 through 17
enrolled in school.
Source: Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Seventeenth annual report to Congress.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 1995, Table AA12.
Percentage of Children Participating in Federally Funded
Special Education Programs, 1993–94 School Year
This map shows the percentage of children from age 3 to 21 who were served in special education programs with funding from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B, and children from birth to age 21 served under Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
■ Nearly 8% of children up to age 21 received special education services nationwide in
1993–94, but there is significant variation among the states in the proportion of children who are in special education.
■ Massachusetts had the highest proportion of children receiving services, with 11% of
children enrolled in special education. Hawaii had the lowest rate, with 5% of children in special education.
9% and above 8% to 9%
7% to 8% below 7%
for each state the proportion of children up to age 21 receiving special education. Although in the 1993–94 school year 8% of children were served in federally fund-ed special fund-education programs, there was significant variation among the states in the proportion of children participating in special education programs. On the extremes, 11% of children up to age 21 in Massachusetts participated in special edu-cation programs, while in Hawaii 5% were enrolled in such programs.
Several reasons have been postulated for these differences. Because education is largely a state concern, states differ in their implementation of the special education laws on factors such as operational defini-tions of disabilities, referral practices, test-ing guidelines, the composition of evalua-tion committees, the strength of special interest groups, the availability and cost of services, and the acceptability of particular classification categories.16Because the
feder-al government leaves control of eligibility decisions to the states, states define for them-selves which children are eligible for special education services and fit into particular dis-ability categories. Thus, a child who might be identified as both eligible for and requir-ing special education in one state might not be identified that way in another.17 These
practical differences in implementation are likely to account for a large portion of the variability in the identification of special edu-cation children and are to be expected given the decentralization of education in the United States. (See the article by Reschly in this journal issue for further discussion of identification practices.)
Other factors are likely to add to the vari-ation. Differences in funding formulas may play a part. If local education departments are given set amounts of special education funding by the state each year, they may have an incentive to identify children who can use the resources that are earmarked for that purpose. In Illinois, for example, state spe-cial education dollars can be spent only on special education children.18Another
possi-bility is that there may be actual differences in the populations of children among states. Many disabilities are related to early health problems such as low birth weight, prenatal substance use, or unsafe or poor living con-ditions. Therefore, areas of the country that
have higher rates of those health and safety problems may have higher concentrations of disabled children.19
The variation in actual identification rates of children needing special education is probably a result of some combination of all of these influences, but the relative importance of the different factors is unknown.
Geographic Variation in
Disability Classification
Children who are placed in special educa-tion are usually divided into groups by dis-ability during their initial evaluation, a process called “classification.” As mentioned above, although the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has 13 official sub-categories for special education participants, states are required to use them only for determining eligibility for services and for
reporting. Some states choose to use the federal categories in providing services, while others, such as Massachusetts, do not categorize children at all after the eligibility process is complete. This seemingly small allowance in classification criteria permits great diversity in the labels and definitions used across the country and makes compar-isons difficult. It also may account for some of the state-by-state variation in the propor-tion of children served in special educapropor-tion shown in Figure 2 and in the proportions classified in specific categories.
In Figure 3, the states are divided into five groups (quintiles) according to the pro-portion of children in each state receiving special education services. Approximately 6.8% of children are in special education in the 10 states in quintile one and almost 10% in quintile five. It appears that the relatively small proportion of children with physical disabilities (included in the “other disability” category) and the proportion of children classified as mentally retarded remain fairly
On the extremes, 11% of children up to age
21 in Massachusetts participated in special
education programs, while in Hawaii 5%
were enrolled in such programs.
Source: Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Seventeenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 1995, Table AA14.
Percentage of Resident Population Age 6 to 21 in Special
Education by Disability and by Quintile of the Percentage of
Children in Special Education, 1993–94 School Year
For this graph, the states were divided into five groups (quintiles) by the proportion of children receiving special education services in the state. The 10 states with the lowest proportion of children in special education are in quintile 1, and the 10 states with the highest proportion of children in special education are in quintile 5.
■ As the proportion of children in special education goes up, the proportion of children with physical disabilities (included in the “other disability” category) remains fairly constant. However, the proportion of children in the learning disabilities category increases substantially, from 3.5% of children in the first quintile to 5.3% of children in the fifth quintile.
■ These differences by quintile show that the variation in the proportion of children in each category is largely explained by the categories that are more difficult to define, such as learning disabilities and serious emotional disturbance.
Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
State Quintiles by Proportion of Children in Special Education
Other disability Mental retardation
Serious emotional disturbance
Multiple disabilities
Speech or language impairment Specific learning disability
P e rcen ta g e of t h e R esid en t P o p u la tion of C h ild re n Ag es 6 t o 2 1 Y e a rs
constant as the proportion of children in special education varies. The proportion of children with specific learning disabilities, however, gradually increases from 3.5% in the first quintile to 5.3% in the fifth, and the proportion of children in the speech impair-ment category also increases. On the other hand, the proportions of children with mul-tiple disabilities and serious emotional dis-turbances, while greater in quintile five than in quintile one, do not consistently increase across quintiles.
Even among states that have similar pro-portions of their child population in special education, the classification of children varies. For example, California and Georgia had similar proportions of children in spe-cial education in 1993–94 (6.3% to 6.4%), and yet more than 3.8% of California stu-dents are classified as having a specific learn-ing disability, a rate twice that reported for Georgia (1.6%). And while 1.1% of Georgia’s students are classified as seriously emotionally disturbed, only 0.2% of students in California are classified in that category.9
Because the percentage of children clas-sified in different categories varies so much across states and also across school districts,16
it appears that where a child lives affects what label he or she receives and whether he or she will receive any services at all. Concern about classification reflects the strong and lasting stigma that labels may produce,20as well as the importance of
iden-tification and classification in obtaining access to appropriate special education ser-vices. Concern about variation in identifica-tion and classificaidentifica-tion of students across states and school districts leads to questions about how useful the OSEP data are in mon-itoring the national special education sys-tem. Population-based epidemiologic stud-ies of the school-aged population that do not rely on school placement data would be helpful in providing benchmarks with which the OSEP data could be compared to assess the extent to which students were being appropriately identified and served.
Comparison of OSEP Data
with Data from National
Surveys
Various national surveys and studies includ-ing the Current Population Survey (CPS),
the National Health Interview Survey Child Health Supplement (NHIS/CH), High School and Beyond, and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 have all been used to supplement OSEP data in an attempt to better estimate the number of students with disabilities in the population.21
Because the criteria used to identify students with disabilities have varied across these data collection efforts, prevalence estimates from different sources may vary for largely techni-cal reasons. With this important caveat in mind, Table 1 compares data based on par-ent reports of children with and receiving services for disabilities from the 1988 NHIS/CH and the 1992 CPS with OSEP data for corresponding years.
The 1988 NHIS/CH was a national sur-vey of 17,110 children. Data collection was by in-person interviews with informed adults (usually mothers), and all data are based on the report of the adult respondent.22 Parents
were asked a number of questions about whether the child ever had various kinds of disabilities and whether the child received services for the condition in the past 12 months.
The CPS is a large on-going population survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census. Data from this survey reported in Table 1 are from the 1992 October supple-ment to the CPS on school enrollsupple-ment.23
The data reflect parental responses to a sin-gle question about whether children have ever had any of a list of 10 disabling condi-tions. The 10 conditions correspond to the 10 largest OSEP disability categories.
The selective comparisons of some of the larger categories in the national surveys and the OSEP data reveal several inconsistencies and do not yield generalizable conclusions. For 1988, parents in the NHIS/CH report a higher proportion of children in special education for learning disabilities and emo-tional problems than schools report in the 1988–89 OSEP data. Parents also reported
Where a child lives affects what label he
or she receives and whether he or she will
receive any services at all.
Delays in Growth
or Development Learning Emotional or Source of Data/Report (Mental Retardation) Disability Behavioral Problems
Parent:NHIS/CH 1988 3.9% 7.8% 6.9%
Percentage of children ages 6 to 17 years who have ever had specified disability
Parent:NHIS/CH 1988 0.9 5.5 1.7
Percentage of children ages 6 to 17 who attended special classes or a special school in past 12 months because of indicated conditions
School:OSEP 1988–89 1.2 4.5 0.8
Percentage of children ages 6 to 17 served under federally funded special education programs
Parent:CPS 1992 0.7 4.3 0.9
Percentage of children ages 5 to 17 with specified disability
School:OSEP 1992–93 0.9 4.1 0.7
Percentage of children ages 6 to 17 served under federally funded special education programs
This table compares data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey Child Health Supplement (NHIS/CH) and data from the 1992 Current Population Survey (CPS) with data collected from schools by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The estimates represent the proportion of children who were reported to be in special education by parents (NHIS/CH) and by schools (OSEP), and parental reports of their children’s experience of educationally disabling conditions (CPS and NHIS/CH).
■ Compared with OSEP data, parents in the NHIS/CH report a higher proportion of children in special education for learning disabilities and emotional problems. Parents also report substantially higher rates of children experiencing these problems than were being served at the time of the survey.
■ In the CPS, parents report rates of disabilities similar to those of the school reports of services from OSEP for 1992–93.
■ There are substantial differences in the proportion of children reported by parents to have disabilities in the 1988 and 1992 surveys. Since the prevalence of disabilities could not have changed so dramatically between 1988 and 1992, other factors, perhaps specific to the surveys themselves, must account for the differences.
Sources: Zill, N., and Schoenborn, C.A. Developmental, learning, and emotional problems: Health of our nation’s children, United States, 1988. Advance data from vital and health statistics.No. 190, November 16, 1990. p. 16, Table 5; Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Seventeenth annual report to Congress.November 1995; Westat, Inc. Final report on extant datasets and disability classification. Contractor report. Contract #HS92035001, May 26, 1995. Submitted to Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC; Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth annual report to Congress. p. A-51, Table AA25.
Parent and School Reports of the Proportion of Children with Disabilities and Those Receiving Services for Disabilities
substantially higher rates of children experi-encing these problems than were being served at the time of the survey. In compari-son, estimates of the proportion of children with selected disabilities based on parental reports in the 1992 CPS match the OSEP data fairly closely. There are, however, sub-stantial differences in the proportion of chil-dren reported by parents to have disabilities in the 1988 and 1992 surveys. It seems improbable that the prevalence of disabili-ties could have changed so dramatically over the four years between 1988 and 1992. It is more likely that there are other factors, per-haps specific to the surveys themselves, that account for the substantial differences between 1988 and 1992.
Exploration of the many reasons the national survey data agree with the OSEP data in one year but not in another is beyond the scope of this short article. However, based on the comparisons pre-sented in the table, it is reasonable to conclude that national surveys of parents probably cannot be relied upon as a means of obtaining accurate information about the prevalence of disabilities requiring special education.
Conclusion
As this journal issue goes to press, the system of special education that has developed over the past several decades is under attack. Among the system’s critics are those who advocate for the inclusion of disabled chil-dren, principally children with mental retar-dation, in mainstream education.24 These
critics focus on the stigmatization associated with some separate, special education pro-grams and on the benefits of having chil-dren with mental retardation associate with nondisabled classmates. Fiscal considera-tions also play a role in the debate about spe-cial education. States and most local school districts operate with limited budgets. On average, the per-pupil cost of special educa-tion is more than twice the cost of regular education. Thus, the continual increase in the number of children in special education programs strains school budgets and decreases the amount of money available for regular education.
The processes of identifying, counting, and classifying children in special education have also come under increased scrutiny. It
is argued that some disability categories are bogus and that instances of overidentifica-tion of children as disabled are frequent, particularly because the most common spe-cial education category, specific learning dis-ability, could fit nearly anyone having some problems in school.12 It is not possible to
determine from the annual OSEP count data reviewed in this article if children are overidentified. However, the variation in the numbers and rates of children served over time and across different jurisdictions is sub-stantial and not well understood.
Even the concept of categorizing dis-abilities has been called into question. The Department of Education has recommend-ed that, in the next reauthorization of the IDEA, a definition of disability similar to the definition in the Americans with Disabilities Act be adopted. Under this def-inition, a student would be eligible for
spe-cial education if he or she “has a physical or mental impairment which substantially lim-its the major life activity of learning and who by reason thereof requires special education.”25Although this definition may
limit labeling of children by category, it will be subject to the vagueness and subjectivity that are cause for concern with the SLD and other categories today. Some advo-cates, such as the Learning Disabilities Association of America, argue that using a general category could result in “generic special education in regular education classrooms” and funding changes, which could “deny students with specific learning disabilities an appropriate education.” 26
Perhaps most problematic from a moni-toring standpoint is the lack of national data on the epidemiology of specific disorders and their prevalence in the population. The OSEP count data are designed to reflect only state counts of the number of children served, not the number of children who might benefit from special education or the number with specific disabilities who are
Perhaps most problematic from a monitoring
standpoint is the lack of national data on the
epidemiology of specific disorders and their
prevalence in the population.
grams. Moreover, national population sur-veys that rely on parents’ reports of specific educational problems and placements have weaknesses. In a field where educators find it difficult to consistently and uniformly identify and classify children with learning problems, it is difficult to put much cre-dence in parents’ differentiation among special education categories on a checklist. At best, the CPS, NHIS/CH, and other national survey data reflect what parents think their children’s problems may be and whether they are receiving services for the problems identified.
Because the purpose of the primary OSEP data collection system is to count the number of children in special education programs being served with federal funds, the system, unless fundamentally altered, will continue to be unable to provide nation-al information for policymakers and educa-tors on the appropriateness of services
deliv-does collect other data, such as the National Education Longitudinal Survey and the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students, which attempt to answer those types of questions, and such efforts are useful for limited purposes. However, increasing expenditures to collect additional data on the prevalence of disabil-ities or to perform more or better state pro-gram evaluations might assure that disabled children are getting the services they need and that children in regular education are not being shortchanged by attention to and funding for special education.
The authors wish to thank Scott Campbell Brown of the Office of Special Education Programs, Marsha L. Brauen of Westat, Inc., and Robert Rossi of the American Institutes of Research for their assistance with this paper. Donna Terman, Richard Behrman, and Mary Larner also provided helpful comments and discussions.
1. Testimony of John Brademas, President Emeritus, New York University, at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, and the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.
2. See, for example, Office of Special Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Sixteenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1994.
3. Children with disabilities who are not in special education may receive other services that are available to any individual with a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Marcia L. Brauen, Westat, Inc. Telephone conversation, November 16, 1995.
4. See note no. 2, Office of Special Education Programs, p. 2.
5. In 1986, Congress permitted states to provide counts of preschool-age children served by a generic category of their choosing rather than by the disability categories to which school-age children were assigned and by which they were reported. In 1991, the law was amended to allow states to incorporate an additional disability category (developmental delay) for chil-dren three to five years of age if they desired. Danaher, J. Preschool special education eligi-bility classification and criteria. NEC*TAS Notes (November 1992) 6:1–2.
6. Scott Campbell Brown, Office of Special Education Programs. Telephone communication, September 26, 1995.
7. Patrick, J.L., and Reschly, D.J. Relationship of state educational criteria and demographic vari-ables to school-system prevalence of mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency (1982) 86,4:351–60; Mercer, C.D., King-Sears, P., and Mercer, A.R. Learning disabilities defini-tions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly (Spring 1990) 13:141–52.
8. Verstegen, D.A. Fiscal provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Historical overview. Policy Paper No. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance, June 1994; Parrish, T.B., and Verstegen, D.A. Fiscal provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Policy issues and alternatives. Policy Paper No. 3. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance, June 1994.
9. National Center for Education Statistics. 120 years of American education: A statistical portrait. T.D. Snyder, ed. Washington, DC: NCES, January 1993, p. 44, Table 12; Office of Special
Education Programs. Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Seventeenth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, November 1995, Tables AA14 and AA1.
10. See note no. 9, National Center for Education Statistics, p. 44, and Office of Special Education Programs, p. 12.
11. See note no. 2, Office of Special Education Programs, p. 7.
12. Zill, N. The school-age handicapped: A statistical profile of special education students in elementary and secondary schools in the United States. Contractor report for the National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: NCES, 1985.
13. With regard to the last factor, many observers have noted that a substantial decline in the number of children classified as having mental retardation occurred simultaneously with the large increase in the count of SLD children. Part of that shift may reflect a conscious effort to avoid the stigmatizing label of being mentally retarded in favor of the more acceptable charac-terization of having a learning disability. While the tendency to classify as learning disabled children who would have previously been stigmatized with a diagnosis of mental retardation can explain a portion of the increase over time in children classified as learning disabled, the substitution of diagnostic categories cannot be a factor in the growth in the aggregate num-ber of children in special education.
14. Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., and Shaywitz, B.A. Issues in the definition and classification of attention deficit disorder. Topics in Language and Disability (1994) 14:1–25; Shaywitz, S.E., and Shaywitz, B.A. Unlocking learning disabilities. Paper presented at Understanding and Healing the Human Brain: Neuroscience and Behavior Research for Improving the Public Health, a Capitol Hill public forum. U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC, March 11, 1994. 15. However, if all of these children were served, the states would not receive any federal
reim-bursement for a large proportion because the federal government will pay for special educa-tion for only up to 12% of the state’s total school enrollment. See note no. 8, Verstegen, and Parrish and Verstegen.
16. Singer, J.D., Palfrey, J.S., Butler, J.A., and Walker, D.K. Variation in special education classifica-tion across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled? American Educational Research Journal (Summer 1989) 26,2:261–81.
17. See, for example, Gartner, A., and Lispky, D.K. Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review (November 1987) 57:367–95.
18. Tom Parrish, American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, CA. Personal communication, September 25, 1995.
19. Gerber, M.M., and Levine-Donnerstein, D. Educating all children: Ten years later. Exceptional Children (1989) 56,1:17–27.
20. Hobbs, N., ed. The future of children: Categories, labels, and their consequences. Report on the pro-ject on classification of exceptional children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
21. Julie Feliciano, Current Population Survey Branch, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fax communi-cation, October 18, 1995; Rossi, R., Herting, J., and Wolman, J. Status and experiences of stu-dents with disabilities: A NELS:88 report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. In press; Zill, N., and Schoenborn, C.A.
Developmental, learning, and emotional problems: Health of our nation’s children, United States 1988. Advance data from vital and health statistics. No. 190. Hyattsville, MD: Public Health Service, November 16, 1990.
22. See note no. 21, Zill and Schoenborn. 23. See note no. 21, Feliciano.
24. Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. What’s “special” about special education? Phi Delta Kappan (March 1995) 76,7:522–30.
25. See note no. 21, Rossi, Herting, and Wolman.
26. Learning Disabilities Association of America. Retaining the specific learning disability category. Position paper. Pittsburgh, PA: LDAA, July 1995.
