NASP Home > About NASP > NASP Position Papers > Position Statement on Rights Without Labels
Position Statement
Rights Without Labels
Throughout the history of special education, the use of categorical labels
to describe and define a disability has stimulated debate and concern. On the
one hand, the use of such terminology serves to bring consistency to research
and communication regarding disabilities. On the other hand, labeling is frequently
associated with stigmatizing, isolating and stereotyping individuals with learning,
behavioral or physical differences; labeling appears unrelated to instructional
needs and current systems of classification are unreliable. Further complicating
this debate are federal and state mandates that appear to tie funding and services
to specific labels and classification systems.
The National Association of School Psychologists recognizes the need for
consistency and fairness in the provision of educational services to all
children, as well as the importance of recognizing individual differences
in designing instruction and school programs. Further, NASP promotes services
that serve the best interests of students at risk and with disabilities, and
believes that such services should not be contingent upon categorical labels
and arbitrary classification systems. Such systems are not supported by research,
are not required by federal law (IDEA) and, in fact, have not promoted consistency
in practice. Further, while categorical funding may have helped to assure that
students with disabilities were provided a “free and appropriate education”
25 years ago, advances in research and instructional technology, and more sophisticated,
data-based trends in legislation, negate the value of traditional labeling in
the 21st Century.
Contrary to
commonly held assumptions, research indicates that:
- State
by state and district by district variations exist in the definition and
criteria for specific disability conditions, despite the common language
of IDEA and its regulations;
- Particularly
among the more subjective, “mild” disability categories of Specific Learning
Disability, Mental Retardation, Emotional Disturbance, and Speech/Language
Impairment, labeled students show significant overlap in skills and receive
highly similar instruction;
- Among
students with very low achievement, there are no consistent distinctions
between those identified as disabled (e.g., SLD) and those who are considered
“Slow Learners”;
- Regardless
of instructional needs, students tend to be placed in programs based on
labels;
- Despite
increased opportunities for inclusion in the general education program,
students who are labeled as having a disability are less likely to have
general education friends, are less likely to have instructional goals tied
to the general education curriculum, are more likely to drop out of school
and have lower rates of successful adult outcomes.
Another common assumption of educators and advocates is that IDEA mandates
a categorical system of special education. Although IDEA (1997 Amendments)
clearly delineates specific disability areas, IDEA does not require that
students be classified by their disability, nor does it require
States to label children, as long as children are appropriately identified
as having a disability using federal regulations. Noncategorical models
of service delivery are permitted by federal law.
In the absence
of empirical evidence for the efficacy of categorical systems, and given the
legality of noncategorical models, NASP promotes service models that insure
the rights of all students to an appropriate education without pejorative
disability labels. Approaches considered tentative and experimental ten years
ago have been proven effective in meeting the needs of at-risk and disabled
students and deserve wider implementation. The following guidelines are offered
to promote the concept of “Rights Without Labels.”
Alternatives to Categorical Services
Problem Solving
Models offer alternatives to the traditional refer-test-place system leading
to categorical labeling of students with disabilities; further, such models
offer early support to at-risk student, potentially reducing referral to special
education. Underlying all problem-solving models is a functional rather
than diagnostic approach to student learning and behavior difficulties--
by examining student performance relative to expectations, identifying instructional
needs, and monitoring and evaluating progress in response to intervention.
The end result is a data-based approach to instructional planning rather than
a specific label.
Screening and General Education Intervention: When students
first exhibit difficulties with academic and behavioral skills, screening/intervention
methods should be provided by classroom teachers and other general education
personnel, with the support of other building resources as needed (i.e., school
psychologists, curriculum specialists, social workers, speech therapists, etc.).
This approach benefits all children, especially those experiencing educational
problems, while helping to identify students with characteristics consistent
with legal definitions of disability conditions. Such practices will engender
an abiding respect for students' rights under the law not to be evaluated in
the absence of genuine suspicion of a disability. Further, research supports
these early intervention strategies as preventing more serious difficulties
and in many cases reducing referral and placement in special education.
Curriculum Based and Functional Assessment: Secondly, identification
and evaluation methods must include functional (instructionally relevant) and
curriculum based assessment (CBA) procedures. Research demonstrates these procedures
provide reliable, valid measures of student performance and produce relevant
information for instructional planning. Further, they fulfill the evaluation
protection criteria mandated in IDEA. The primary purpose of these procedures
is not to classify or label children, but rather to identify specific curriculum
and instructional deficits and strengths in order to provide a framework to
develop appropriate educational programs. For students ultimately determined
to have a disability requiring an Individual Educational Program (IEP), CBA
and other functional procedures provide a foundation for developing instructional
plans and for monitoring student progress toward goals in general education.
Reallocation of Resources: Traditionally, the array of special
education supplementary aids, services and resources (including teachers/aides)
have been available to children only outside the general education classroom.
Our goal is to broaden the context within which special education resources
can be used and to reverse the practice of moving students with disabilities
to special education services outside mainstream classrooms and schools. Instead,
special education resources can be transferred into the non-categorically identified
students' regular classroom setting. Consistent with the recent “inclusive education”
movement, research has demonstrated that students with disabilities benefit
from the socialization opportunities and higher expectations of exposure to
the general education curriculum and make at least as much progress as do similar
students placed in segregated programs. Recent revisions of IDEA further promote
inclusion of students with disabilities in instructional activities within general
education.
Assuring Student Rights to Free and Appropriate Public Education
Any change
from a categorical to noncategorical model of service delivery must insure
that all rights to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) are upheld,
as specified in the most recent Reauthorization of IDEA. This includes the
following guarantees:
1)
Standards for fair and unbiased identification and
evaluation of children to determine the presence of a “disability;”
2)
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for all
students who are identified as having a disability, including specialized
instruction and related services;
3)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) standards in
determining educational placements;
4)
Appointment of surrogate parents when appropriate;
5)
Non-discriminatory discipline procedures;
6)
All timeline standards governing the above practices
and procedures;
7)
Parental rights in the identification, evaluation,
IEPs and placement of students identified as having a disability;
8)
Due Process rights for parents and students who wish
to pursue concerns/complaints regarding educational evaluations, programs
and placements;
9)
Local advisory boards to assist (LEAs) in planning
for the provision of appropriate educational services;
10) All other due process and procedural safeguards
specified in IDEA;
11) Full disclosure of the procedures and alternatives
available under the noncategorial model of services.
Assurance of Quality Instructional Program
Any proposed
noncategorical program or system shall:
1)
Employ general education
(pre-referral) screening/intervention measures and utilize evaluation procedures
that include curriculum-based and other functional assessments.
2)
Employ methodology known
to be associated with effective teaching/learning (for example, provide students
with orderly and productive environments, ample learning/teaching time, systematic
and objective feedback on performance, well- sequenced curricula, etc.).
3)
Focus attention on basic
skills as priority areas for instruction (for example, language, self-management,
reasonable social behavior, mathematics, health and safety, etc.).
4)
Provide procedures to identify
and respond to the individual needs of all students, and in particular, those
who may need modifications in their school programs.
5) Provide for special education aids,
services and resources to be delivered in general education settings, to the
extent feasible and appropriate for the individual student.
Assessment of Outcomes
Any proposed
noncategorical program shall:
1)
Have an objective methodology
for assessing the educational progress of students in major curriculum domains
(including academic, social, motivational and attitudinal variables), for
each IEP goal, and for comparing such progress with results in traditional
programs.
2)
Develop and utilize a cost-benefit
analysis to compare costs with traditional programs.
School Personnel and Facilities
Any proposed
non-categorical program shall:
1)
Include instruction and
services by teachers and staff who are qualified in accordance with current
state certification standards.
2)
Include a delivery system
that provides continuing staff development responsive to the training needs
of the teaching staff and administrative personnel who will be implementing
the noncategorical program.
3)
Include appropriate instructional
materials and other resources.
4) Include assurances that funding levels
and personnel allocations will not be decreased as a result of implementation
of noncategorical services.
Implementation Issues
Successful
implementation of noncategorical, problem solving models across states and
districts has demonstrated the efficacy of this alternative; additionally
the experiences of these projects has demonstrated barriers to success and
strategies to overcome these barriers.
Research has
shown that effective implementation of problem solving and noncategorical
programs require:
- Administrative
support (at the state and district level)
- Comprehensive
and ongoing staff training
- Community
and parent involvement in all stages of planning
- Assurances
of financial support (alternative funding; “hold harmless” provisions, etc)
- Readiness
for and commitment to change
- Frequent
evaluation of program implementation and student outcomes
In some communities,
implementation of a noncatgorical system has been undertaken in the context
of a “dual” system, whereby the traditional, categorical system and a noncategorical
alternative co-exist. Thus both traditional and new procedures are used; traditional
classification is determined for reporting purposes yet labels are not emphasized
in programming; traditional funding and staffing formulae remain in place.
While such dual systems were considered essential to experimentation in the
last decade, sufficient data now exist to support noncategorical approaches
and negate the need for a dual system. Dual systems, although they appear
to offer an idea compromise, create a new set of problems without eliminating
the primary concerns of labeling: Confusion as to the purpose of either system;
collection of data that are irrelevant to instruction; a double message as
to the desirability of labeling; confusion regarding program philosophy; significant
training difficulties; confounding of data used to determine program outcomes.
The National
Association of School Psychologists considers the current body of research
more than sufficient to warrant recommending large-scale implementation of
noncategorical models of service delivery, following the above guidelines.
In 25 years, traditional categorical service models have failed to demonstrate
their efficacy, while recent applications of problem solving models and noncategorical
services show far more promising outcomes.
We call upon
our colleagues, advocates and parents to join us in promoting best practices
in serving the wide range of needs of at-risk learners and those with disabilities.
We further call upon policymakers to assure that adequate funding continues
to support a full range of appropriate, data-based services for all
students, and that such funding be contingent upon identified student needs
rather than arbitrary labels.
References
Reschly, Tilly
& Grimes (1999). Special Education in Transition. Sopris West.
Telzrow &
Tankersley (2000). IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice Guidelines for School-Based
Teams. NASP.
Original statement adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly in 1986.
Revision of this statement adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 14,
2002.