Government Support for Special Needs Children in Education

Introduction

Educational institutions in both the United States and the United Kingdom are making efforts to develop more optimal methods of assessing school children, particularly students with disabilities and students who are advanced or gifted. The system for assessing students with disabilities is widely cited as one that needs to be more accessible and more transparent (Topping, 2009).

The purpose of the research proposed herein is to determine what the government can do to provide support to special needs children facing the educational challenges that make it difficult for them to successfully acquire a meaningful education.

Significance and Research Questions

The significance of this study lies in the knowledge that will be gained through the proposed research and the contribution it will make to the existing body of knowledge in this area of study.

The questions addressed in the proposed research are:

(1) What support can the government provide to special needs students?

Literature Review

(2) Is the support provided by the government needed most at the state or federal level?

(3) What approaches have demonstrated success in the past in providing support to special needs students in education?

The methodology proposed for this study is qualitative in nature and will be conducted through an extensive review of relevant literature in this area of study, including academic, scholarly, and peer-reviewed literature. Also included in the literature review are professional reports and studies, as well as any legal documentation relevant to the study.

The National Research Council, U.S. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, in its work entitled Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education, makes recommendations including the recommendation that "while the United States has a strong tradition of state control of education, the committee recommends that the federal government support widespread adoption of early screening and intervention in the states" (2002, p. 18). Specifically recommended are the following:

(1) Technical assistance and information dissemination should be coordinated at the federal level — potentially through the U.S. Department of Education, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a cooperative effort of the two, or through some other designated agent; and (2) the federal government can encourage the use of Title I funds to implement early screening and intervention in both reading and behavior for schools currently receiving those funds. Funds provided under the Reading Excellence Act might also support this effort under the existing mandate (National Research Council U.S. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, 2002, p. 19).

The report also recommends "a research program oriented toward the development of a broader knowledge base on early identification and intervention of children who exhibit advanced performance in the verbal or quantitative realm, or who exhibit other advanced abilities" (National Research Council U.S. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, 2002). It is stated that the research program should be designed to determine "whether there are reliable and valid indicators of current exceptional performance in language, mathematical, or other domains, or indicators of later exceptional performance" (National Research Council U.S. Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, 2002, p. 21).

The work of Topping (2009), entitled "Special Needs System Shake-Up to Improve Support of Pupils," reports that the school secretary Ed Balls announced new measures intended to provide better support for students with disabilities and special educational needs. Specifically, the government committed to "taking assessment of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) out of the hands of local authorities, which, according to parents' groups, consider the cost of a child's education when assessing their needs" (Topping, 2009, p. 1). The government acknowledged the desire of parents for "clearer, more transparent assessments" (Topping, 2009, p. 1).

Because children with disabilities are "eight times as likely to be excluded from school," the report states that the "proposals will also crack down on schools that exclude high numbers of students with SEN" (Topping, 2009, p. 1). Additionally, new "statutory guidance will push behavior and attendance partnerships — groups of secondary schools in one area that have come together to challenge poor behavior and attendance — with high levels of exclusions of children with SEN to address the problem quickly" (Topping, 2009, p. 1).

A report from the University of Michigan's Psychology Department states that the special education system in the United States is "one of the most heavily regulated and under-funded of all federal education mandates." According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, when IDEA was created in 1975, the legislation included the goal that 40% of the extra costs of including special needs children in regular classrooms would be covered by the federal government. However, as of the 2002 budget, the government had provided only 18% of those extra costs, leaving states and local governments to cover the remainder (University of Michigan Psychology Department, 2009, p. 1). The report concludes that not nearly enough funding is provided for children with special needs — precisely the children who most need such funding — and that teachers are not receiving adequate training to effectively instruct these students (2009).

Michigan is noted as "one of the few states to take action against the lack of proper funding for special education" (University of Michigan Psychology Department, 2009, p. 1). In the case Durant v. Board of Education, 244 taxpayers representing 225 school districts filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan for "underfunding special education programs and services by hundreds of thousands of dollars" (University of Michigan Psychology Department, 2009, p. 1). To prevent similar underfunding in other states, advocates argue that the federal government must "step in and take charge of where this money is going. They need to enforce these laws throughout the entire country and make sure every state is doing what needs to be done so that children everywhere, disability or not, can have a positive, effective school experience" (University of Michigan Psychology Department, 2009, p. 1).

An International Initiative for Impact Evaluation report from March 2009 noted that "enrollment rates and educational attainment of children with disabilities lag far behind those of their non-disabled peers. The school enrollment rate for children with disabilities is estimated to be some 2 to 5% in developing countries, a deficit that far exceeds those of other high-risk groups such as girls, children from rural areas, or from low-income families" (Filmer, 2008, as cited in International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2009). The report further states that the issue of education for students with special needs in developing countries is primarily about inclusion — ensuring that children and young people with disabilities have access to the same schools as children without special needs. Nevertheless, "the lack of support services, relevant materials and support personnel," compounded by government apathy, "are major stumbling blocks for implementation of integration in these countries" (Peters, 2003, in International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2009).