NASP Home > About NASP > NASP Position Papers > Position Statement on Advocacy for Appropriate Educational Services for All Children
Position Statement
Advocacy for Appropriate Educational Services for All Children
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) achieved major
goals in serving children with disabilities, many who previously had been excluded
from appropriate education programs. Since its enactment in 1975, all children
with disabilities have been guaranteed a free and appropriate public education,
the right to due process, and individualization of instruction according to
need. The National Association of School Psychologists strongly supports the
continuation of legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), which has mandated these guarantees.
NASP recognizes
that serious problems have been encountered as school districts strive to
meet these mandates while assuring a quality education for all students. Some
of these problems reflect difficulties within special education; others have
their origins in the general education system.
Some significant
problems involve reverse sides of the issue of access to appropriate education:
(1) On the one hand, access to special education must be assured for all children
with disabilities identified under state and federal regulation who need and
can benefit from it. (2) Conversely, some children who may not be truly disabled
are labeled and placed in special education inappropriately because of: (a)
a lack of general education options designed to meet the needs of children
with diverse learning styles; (b) at times, a lack of understanding of diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds; and (c) inappropriate application of
measurement technologies that focus on labels for placement rather than on
information to improve instruction and learning. It is not a benign action
to label children as "having a disability" if they do not, in fact,
have a disability, even when this is done in order to provide them with services
unavailable in general education. This is an unfortunate result of categorical
models that attach funding to classifications/labels.
Other problems with the current classification system include:
-
Labels that are often irrelevant
to instruction needs.
-
Particularly for students
with mild disabilities or low achievement, the use of arbitrarily defined
categories based on specific deficit labels. These distinctions come to be
accepted as “real,” often preventing more meaningful assessment and understanding
of students’ psycho-educational needs.
-
Reduced expectations for
children who are placed in special education programs.
-
Costly assessment processes
focused on eligibility determination that often deflect limited resources
from the identification of functional instructional needs and the development
of effective psycho-educational programs within the total school system.
-
Limited modifications of
the general education curricula and programs to better meet the diverse needs
of all children.
The current trend toward statewide standards
assessments further complicates the problems associated with categorical special
education models. As national standards for excellence are raised, the number
of children at risk for school failure increases dramatically. Without provisions
to prepare students to meet higher expectations through effective school-wide
instructional programs, many of these at-risk children may be identified as
having a disability and placed in special education. This climate of “high
stakes” testing, where attainment of standards is potentially tied to school
funding, creates an urgent need for reexamination and change in the system
that provides access to services and instructional modifications.
In view of these problems, and based
upon the commitment to see that all children receive effective and appropriate
public education irrespective of race, cultural background, linguistic background,
socio-economic status, or educational need, NASP believes:
-
All children can learn.
Schools have a responsibility to teach them, and school personnel and parents
should work together to assure every child a free and appropriate public education
in a positive school environment.
-
Instructional options and
support services, based on the individual psycho-educational needs of each
child, must be maximized within an integrated education system. The supports
of the general education program must be designed to meet most student educational
needs (especially for students unable to meet minimum levels of proficiency
on high-stakes testing), eliminating the need to classify at-risk children
as having a disability in order to receive appropriate instruction. Such a
system of instructional supports requires collaboration across general and
special education personnel.
-
Psycho-educational needs
of children should be determined through a multi-dimensional, non-biased assessment
process. Such a process must evaluate the match between the learner and his
or her educational environment, including the curriculum, rather than relying
on the deficit-based model that places the blame for failure within the child.
Assessment for all students must always link directly to services designed
to meet psycho-educational needs.
NASP supports the continuation of a national initiative to meet the
educational needs of all children: We propose the ongoing development
and evaluation of alternatives to the current categorical system. This
requires reevaluation of funding mechanisms and advocacy for policy and
funding waivers needed for the implementation of alternative service delivery
models. It also requires the development of increased support systems
and ongoing training of all school personnel to enable them to work effectively
with a broad range of children with special needs within the general education
system. This initiative encourages greater independence for children by
enabling them to function within the broadest possible environments, and
independence for school personnel by providing them with the training
and support necessary to address the instructional needs of a diverse
population of students.
The types and
extent of change that we propose require considerable caution. Targeted funds
intended for children with identified disabilities must be protected. Similarly,
resources for children who do not have disabilities, but who experience learning
and/or behavioral difficulties, must be expanded, in order to insure that
these children are effectively served within general education. We must also
assure that the transition to an alternative system places no child at risk
of losing needed services or due process safeguards.
Our task is to improve outcomes for students with
disabilities and increase opportunities within the total school system, without
taking away the protections offered by IDEA. Noncategorical programs must
meet the requirements of accountability, due process, and protection of students'
and parents' rights, and provide funding for students in need of services.
In addition, while these recommended modifications already have a significant
empirical foundation in reducing of misclassification due to cultural or linguistic
differences, we caution that these issues, as well as student outcomes, must
continue to be monitored, evaluated, and discussed
Because of the complexity of these issues, the implementation
of effective solutions will require expanding the nationwide efforts of interested
persons and organizations, and collaborating to strengthen our base of knowledge,
research, and experience. Through such a coordinated effort, we can establish
new frameworks and conceptualizations on which to base decisions, design feasible
service delivery options, advocate for policy and funding changes needed to
implement these alternatives, and share information for positive change. The
National Association of School Psychologists invites you to join us.
Resource
Reschly, D., Tilly, W., & Grimes,
J. (Eds.). (1999). Special Education in Transition. Sopris West.
Original statement adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly in 1985.
Revision of this statement adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 14,
2002.