Say “special education,” and many people think of brain-damaged students, or ones who use wheelchairs and respirators. Newspapers, magazines, and television just reinforce this image.

But examining special education students reveals a far different picture. Although students who receive special services are highly diverse, the vast majority are not acutely disabled, either physically or mentally. Only a fraction suffers from severe handicaps. Most are diagnosed with disabilities that do not necessarily mean reduced mental ability, which has led many to argue that, with special accommodations and support services, the majority of students with disabilities should be able to perform at grade level and graduate from high school with a regular diploma (Cortiella 2007, Dillion 2007).

Yet the achievement of students who receive special services lags far behind their non-disabled counterparts. Only half of all students with disabilities leave high school with a standard diploma. In some states, the achievement gap on the state achievement test between students with disabilities and those without is more than 45 percentage points.

And the number of these students is growing rapidly. Since 1993, the number of students with disabilities has increased by more than one million. All these factors, along with the accountability measures required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), have put special education on the reform agenda.

Before reform takes place, though, it’s important to understand the issues correctly. This guide examines who special education students are and what educators can expect of them.

What is special education?

Special education is any academic program or initiative aimed at serving students who have mental, physical, or emotional disabilities. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulates most aspects of the practice. (See "Special education: History of IDEA" for a more complete description of IDEA.)

Under IDEA, public schools are required to provide special education services for all children with disabilities ages three through twenty-one at no cost to the families. (Children with disabilities ages birth to age two receive services through an early intervention system run by a state or local agency.) The “special education” these children receive aims to help them achieve not only in school, but in work and other life settings. Therefore, the education includes everything from academic tutoring to teaching students life skills, like balancing a checkbook or cooking a meal. They may also receive other related services, such as an aide to help them during the school day, if needed. For a child to be eligible for special education under IDEA, he or she must have a physical or mental impairment that affects academic performance or major life activity.

Although special education recognizes that every student’s ability level is different, IDEA groups students broadly into fourteen disability categories. They are:
1. Autism
2. Deaf-blindness
3. Deafness
4. Developmental delay
5. Emotional disturbance
6. Hearing impairment
7. Mental retardation
8. Orthopedic impairment
9. Specific learning disability (e.g., dyslexia)
10. Speech or language impairment
11. Traumatic brain injury
12. Visual impairment
13. Multiple disabilities
14. Other health impairments

Most of the categories cover a number of different disabilities. Orthopedic impairment, for example, covers students with birth defects, such as clubfoot, those impaired by diseases such as post-polio syndrome, and those impaired by injuries (such as a spinal injury). States have some limited flexibility in how they use the eligibility categories, and there are some slight variations across the states. For instance, Colorado and Delaware do not use the category “other health impairments,” putting those students in the “orthopedic impairment” category.  But the federal government mandates the terms, definitions, and categories under IDEA, and the categories are largely consistent across the nation.

Parents play a significant role in determining whether their child has a disability and what services the child receives under the program. They are required to be a part of the team--called an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team--that identifies, evaluates, and classifies their child as disabled. The IEP team decides the type and level of services based upon the needs of the student, tailoring the support and accommodations to a child’s specific disability.

What do we know about special education students?

Where are they?

Almost every school district in the country has at least one student who receives special education, and 9 percent of the population ages six through twenty-one were served under IDEA in 2006 (U.S. Department of Education 2006a).

Some areas of the country have larger percentages of students enrolled in special education than others. West Virginia has the highest rate of any state, with more than 12 percent of its students receiving special services (U.S. Department of Education 2006b). At 7.3 percent, Hawaii has the lowest.

There are variations within states as well (U.S. Department of Education, 2006b). The suburban Hartford community of East Windsor, Connecticut, reported a special education population of almost 14 percent during the 2005–2006 school year (Connecticut Department of Education 2006a). Other districts in the state posted rates as low as 7 percent (Connecticut Department of Education 2006b).

There are a number of reasons for these variations. As discussed above, states have some latitude in how they define a disability, and students who meet the requirements of an eligibility category in one state may not meet the requirements in another state. Schools and districts also vary in the type and kind of special education services they offer, and parents will sometimes move to an area in order to take advantage of a particular type of program (Education Week 2004).

But perhaps the most important reason for the variation is that IDEA allows significant flexibility at the local level in the method districts use to identify students. Under the law, a child’s parents and qualified educators will conduct a full evaluation of a child and decide together if the child meets the IDEA definition of a disability. Educators and parents in some areas may be more aggressive about classifying students as disabled than others (Education Week 2004).

What are special education students like?

The vast majority of special education students have mild to moderate learning disabilities instead of severe handicaps. For example, more than 40 percent of all students who receive special services under IDEA are classified as having “specific learning disabilities.” This category is defined as “an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculation” (U.S. Department of Education 2006c). In practical terms, it includes any student with a discrepancy between his or her achievement and intellectual ability. It includes mild disabilities, such as dyslexia. Students with specific learning disabilities typically spend almost all of their day in traditional classrooms.

The second largest group of special education students is those with speech or language impairments—the category includes stuttering, impaired articulation, and language impairment. About 20 percent of students who receive special services fall into this category. They also spend most of their day in general education classrooms.

So how is the rest of the special education population distributed? After the first two categories, the next most common official designation is “mental retardation” (about 9 percent of all special education students), followed by “emotional disturbance” (8 percent) and “other health impairments” (8 percent). The most severe disability categories are the least common. Autism accounts for around 4 percent of all students with disabilities. Students with multiple disabilities number around 2 percent of the total. Traumatic brain injury accounts for less than one half of 1 percent. Indeed, experts estimate that only between 10 and 15 percent of all students who receive special education have severe handicaps; almost half of all students who receive special services spend more than 80 percent of their school day in general education classrooms (Cortiella 2007).

The following table shows the distribution of special education students by category for each state.

Why is the number of special education students growing?

In 1976, just 5 percent of all students received special education services under IDEA. By 2006, that figure had almost doubled to 9 percent. Few other student populations have grown so fast over such a short period of time.

But the growth has not been equal among disability types. The category of specific learning disabilities has grown enormously—more than 200 percent since 1976 (Horn and Tynan, 2001). Autism has also soared. In 1993, less than 1 percent of the special education population received services within the eligibility category. In 2006, the rate had more than tripled to 4 percent. The category “other health impairments,” which includes students with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), has also boomed. In 1993, the category comprised less than 0.1 percent of all students with disabilities. In 2006, it had grown to more than 0.9 percent.

There are a number of factors behind the growth. For one, there’s much greater public awareness and acceptance of disabilities. The stigma of being identified as “disabled” has lessened over the years. The federal government has also loosened the definition of disability within some of the categories. Until the early 1990s, for instance, students with ADD and ADHD were not eligible for special services under IDEA. Today, they are permitted to participate under the “other health impairments” category. The definition of autism has also been expanded, and students with mild cases are eligible. Previously, many of these students simply would have been identified as low achievers (Horn and Tynan, 2001).

Special education and minorities

No discussion of the special education population would be comprehensive without examining the disproportionate number of minority special education students. Experts have long been concerned that a disproportionate number of minority students are being identified as students with special needs (Education Week 2004, National Research Council 2002). To quote from a 2003 Charles County study: “That African American boys are disproportionately placed in special education, and that this is a problem, has been exhaustively documented (Artiles 1998, Artiles 2000, Chin and Hughes 1987, Dove et al 1986, Figueroa 1999, Finn 1982, Grant 1992, Patton 1998, Reschly 1988).”

The numbers are significant. For instance, while blacks make up 15 percent of the general school-age population (NCES 2007), they constitute more than 20 percent of all special education students. In some IDEA categories, they are more than twice as likely to be identified as having a disability than white students. The same pattern holds true for Hispanic and American Indian (but not Asian American) students. In 2006, for instance, more than 14 percent of American Indian students were identified as having disabilities. In contrast, only 9 percent of white students were identified.

You can also see the specific breakdown of special education students by race for each state.

Black students who receive special education services are also more likely to drop out. Thirty-three percent of all black students with disabilities, ages fourteen to twenty-one, drop out. In contrast, just 22 percent of similar white students drop out. (The same contrast is true for Hispanic and American Indian students.)

Those who study the issue believe that part of the problem is that minority special education students are more likely to grow up in poor neighborhoods. The higher incidence of low-birthweight babies, environmental toxins, and malnutrition in these neighborhoods can trigger more disabilities.

But societal misconceptions might be part of the problem as well. The disparities between whites and some minorities in special education appear mostly in the categories with the most subjective eligibility criteria, such as “mild mental retardation” or “specific learning disabilities.” Many believe the disproportionate representation is due to misconceptions about race and culture, and that black and Hispanic children are more likely to be misidentified as disabled (Education Week 2004, National Research Council 2002).

For instance, Matthew Ladner and Christopher Hammons argue that race plays an enormously important role in how students are identified as disabled (Ladner and Hammons, 2001). In a study in the book Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, they found that in districts with a predominantly black faculty, there was a reduction in minority student enrollment in special education services by three to four times. “Race,” they concluded, “impacts special education rates far more than any other variable.”

States and school districts have been taking steps to reduce the overidentification of minority students. In recent years, many have provided training on cultural diversity and the disability spectrum. And IDEA now contains a provision seeking to reduce overidentification.

What can we expect of special education students?

Understanding the makeup of the special education population helps us understand what we can expect them to achieve. Because the special education population is varied, every student will be able to achieve at a different level. That’s why special education requires individualized education plans.

Many in the special education community argue that the majority of special education students can be expected to perform just as well as their general education classmates. For example, the National Center for Learning Disabilities argues that approximately 8 out of 10 students who receive services under IDEA could be expected to perform just as well as their non-disabled counterparts. “Simply put, the vast majority of students receiving special education in our nation’s schools…are found eligible under a disability category that in no way precludes them from—with appropriate services and supports—functioning at or above grade level or from achieving proficiency on a state’s academic content standards in reading and math,” the report concluded (Cortiella 2007). Other analysts such as Education Sector’s  Erin Dillon have come to very similar conclusions (Dillon 2007).

These arguments are based on IDEA’s definitions. Most of IDEA’s categories do not indicate that the student has a mental handicap. Instead, they indicate that without special services, there is a gap between the student’s achievement and ability—a totally different thing. To state the most obvious example, just because a student is blind doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with that student’s brain. Other definitions, too—most notably, that of “learning disability,”—make no mention of mental handicaps. As explained earlier, “learning disability” is defined as a gap between ability and achievement, not a deficit in ability. If the majority of special education students’ potential matches the same range as general education students, why not expect the same ability to learn?

But even though the achievement gap between disabled and non-disabled students has narrowed over the past few years, it remains large. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), eighth graders who had disabilities earned a scale score of 246 on the 2007 math exam. In contrast, students without disabilities posted a scale score of 284, a gap of more than 38 scale score points – almost four years’ worth of learning! (U.S. Department of Education 2007a). (For a discussion of NAEP and the assessment of students with disabilities, see the sidebar "NAEP and special education students.) The achievement gap between students with disabilities and students without disabilities was almost as large at the fourth grade level. Fourth graders who had disabilities posted a scale score of 190 on the NAEP 2007 reading exam. Fourth graders without disabilities earned a scale score of 223, a gap of 33 scale score points (U.S. Department of Education 2007b).

State assessments show a similar gap.  In Massachusetts, the achievement gap in fourth grade reading between students with disabilities and students without disabilities was more than 30 percentage points (Ehrlich, Buckley, Midouhas, and Brodesky 2008). In Illinois, the Prairie State Achievement Examination (which measures the performance of eleventh graders) revealed a gap between special education students and their counterparts of 45 percentage points (Illinois State Board of Education 2006).

Graduation rates, too, show the same problem. Students with disabilities continue to graduate at far lower rates than their counterparts, and more than a quarter of students who receive special education services drop out before ever receiving a diploma. As expected, students who have the most severe disabilities such as brain traumas or multiple disabilities post some of the lowest graduation rates. What is more troubling is that students in categories that do not imply mental disability, such as emotional disturbance, post rates almost as low. 

States’ particular special education rates vary widely from state to state. Pennsylvania and Hawaii report that well over 80 percent of students with disabilities ages fourteen and older graduate. In contrast, Alabama, Mississippi, and Nevada graduate less than 25 percent of students with disabilities. And while the data may reflect some differences in how the states collect and analyze the information, state standards, or types of diplomas given, it’s clear that, between states, there are some large gaps in outcomes. The following table shows the graduation and dropout rates for students with disabilities in each state as compared to the national average graduation rate of students with disabilities.

What works to raise achievement for special education students?

Schools are searching for ways to raise achievement for special education students, because the large gaps make it difficult for some schools to meet their AYP targets under NCLB. One recent study of four Mid-Atlantic states found that more schools missed their AYP targets solely because of the performance of the students with disabilities than any other subgroup (Johnson, Peck, & Wise, 2007a). While relatively few schools miss AYP simply because of one subgroup (a related study showed just 9 percent of schools missed AYP targets due to just one subgroup  [Johnson, Peck, and Wise 2007b]  ), those that do often miss it because of special education students. In Maryland, which had the highest percentage of schools reporting scores for special education students, 7 percent of schools missed their AYP targets in math solely because of the performance of special education students.

Although the gap has narrowed recently, there’s no clear consensus within the education community about what has caused this welcome change. Some have argued that there has been an increased focus on the performance of students with disabilities and that the targeted instruction has helped the overall scores of students who receive special services (National Center for Learning Disabilities 2007, Education Week 2007). Other experts have noted that recent changes in the federal eligibility categories have allowed more students with milder disabilities to become identified as needing services and that these students might have an easier time achieving at high levels (Dillon 2007).

On NAEP, the most significant improvement in this achievement gap has been in fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. On the 1998 NAEP, there was a scale score difference between the two groups in fourth grade reading of 40 points. In 2007, the difference in scores had dropped by 7 scale score points to 33. There was a similar narrowing of the achievement gap in eighth grade math, and the gap in scores between the two groups decreased by 3 scale score points.

In addition, special education graduation rates, while still low, are rising.  The percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B, who graduated with a standard diploma increased from 41 percent in 1993 to 57 percent in 2006. Students with disabilities are now also far more likely to graduate from high school with a certificate or some other type of academic credential. In 1993, just 8 percent of students enrolled in special education services earned a certificate. By 2006, that number had almost doubled, with more than 15 percent of students with disabilities graduating with a certificate. (Whether this represents progress depends on the rigor of the requirements for a certificate. For more discussion of graduation data, see the "Graduation data" sidebar.)

This increase, however, has not been steady across all disability types. The categories for mental retardation and multiple disabilities, for instance, have shown little growth. But in 1993, only 34 percent of students with autism served under IDEA, Part B, graduated with a diploma. In 2006 that figure jumped by 24 percentage points, so that over 57 percent of students with autism were leaving with a diploma. In addition, the graduation rate of students who report having “other health impairments” increased over time by more than 16 percentage points.

Obviously, more research is needed.  However, while we may not know the specific cause, we do know that states that have tried to improve the performance of students with disabilities have seen some gains. In 2005, New York began a concentrated effort to boost the performance of their students with disabilities (New York Department of Education 2006). The state paid for teacher professional development programs, began research-based reading instruction models, and encouraged schools and teachers to individualize special education student support. And while more research needs to be conducted on the program, the initiative has had initial success. In 2007, students in the state with disabilities made progress in narrowing the achievement gap at every grade level except grade eight over the previous year, and in some areas the achievement gains were quite large. The percent of students with disabilities reaching level 3 on the state standards in seventh grade math jumped by nearly 10 percentage points, going from 18 percent in 2006 to 27 percent in 2007 (New York Department of Education 2007) .

What can school boards do?

The vast majority of students today who are identified with disabilities might have been classified as simply “low achieving” just a few years ago. However, their achievement still lags behind that of non-disabled students. The booming growth of special education—along with the accountability measures of NCLB—makes the achievement of students with disabilities something educators cannot ignore. While specific solutions are elusive due to the lack of research, when schools and districts target resources and support, the achievement of students with disabilities does increase.

In order to accurately evaluate your district’s needs and goals, you should consider the following questions:

1. What is the special education population in our district? How does it break down by disability? By racial/ethnic group? By family income?

2. How are our district’s special education students performing relative to other students? Has this performance changed over time?

3. What goals could we reasonably set for special education students, keeping in mind the group’s diversity?

4. How much of our special education dollars are federal? State? Local?

5. Do we have enough special education teachers? Do they meet the “highly qualified” definition? Do they have enough resources and support?

This examination of special education was prepared for the Center for Public Education by Ulrich Boser, a freelance writer and a contributing editor at U.S. News and World Report. His work has appeared in Smithsonian, Slate, and the Washington Post.

Posted: October 15, 2009

©2009 Center for Public Education