Special Ed Most of the

Special Ed Most of the frustrations vented at the special education process are directed at regulations. Regulations vary from state to state and in some cases, district to district. Yet the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandates that all students be assessed using the same set of tests. This leaves many educators stranded, wondering how they can reconcile a specially-designed Individual Education Plan (IEP) with the rigors of NCLB. What's more, the students receiving the IEP are not reading at their grade level.

Their special education status flags these students as being in need of lesson adaptations and special attention but they are still expected to pass the same exams as classmates. Many regular educators would like to see alternative means of assessment for their special education students, even while keeping special education students in the mainstream classroom. Granted, the NCLB attempts to equalize the learning experience by paying separate attention to special education students in the school assessment process (Caputo 2006).

The prevailing trend in education ensures that mainstream experiences benefit not just the students with IEPs but also their classmate, who may have no disabilities or who may be gifted. Regular educators also face the added challenge of including in their classrooms English Language Learners (ELLs) who present unique needs and challenges. Using cooperative learning and teamwork techniques is helpful to a degree, but the role of specialists in the special education process should not be underestimated.

As Sacks (2001) points out, "The significance of a trained special education teacher is essential" especially in identifying students with special needs (p. 10). The trained special education teacher is also necessary for working out the IEPs, monitoring student progress, and providing follow-up assessments (Sacks 2001 p. 10). Unfortunately, budget cuts and other constraints place regular educators in the situation of acting as if they already have specialized training. Regular educators are also frustrated with the way NCLB penalizes schools that have high numbers of special education students.

Even when those schools are serving special education students well enough to become local "magnets" because their good programs, the government can penalize them using the MCA-II and similar tests (Caputo 2006). Other issues also complicate special education in the inclusive classroom. Regular educators are addressing a more diverse student body than ever before. Even within the rubric of "special education," teachers are working with a seemingly infinite number of special needs.

Cognitive disorders, learning disabilities that may or may not be specified, behavioral disorders, developmental disorders, and physical disabilities ranging from mild to severe -- these are just a few of the examples of how special education students may be classified in the classroom. Moreover, autism and similar disorders present added challenges. Some teachers might have identified students with special needs but their recommendations for evaluation fall on deaf ears. These challenges are felt not just by the regular educators but.