Corrected: An earlier version of this story incorrectly characterized special education enrollment figures for Kansas. The state鈥檚 decrease from 56,328 students in 2005 to 55,834 students in 2008 was for all students with disabilities.
After decades of what seemed to be an inexorable upward path, the number of students classified as learning-disabled declined from year to year over much of the past decade鈥攁 change in direction that is spurring debates among experts about the reasons why.
The percentage of 3- to 21-year-old students nationwide classified as having a 鈥渟pecific learning disability鈥� dropped steadily from 6.1 percent in the 2000-01 school year to 5.2 percent in 2007-08, , which come from the U.S Department of Education鈥檚 2009 Digest of Education Statistics. In numbers, that鈥檚 a drop from about 2.9 million to 2.6 million students.
A learning disability鈥攁 processing disorder that impairs learning but not a student鈥檚 overall cognitive ability鈥攊s the largest, by far, of the 13 disability classifications recognized by the main federal special education law. Forty percent of the approximately 6.6 million students covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, fall into that category.
The decrease in the category goes hand in hand with a decrease in special education enrollment overall, though that change is not as large. The percentage of all students covered under the IDEA fell from a high of 13.8 percent in the 2004-05 school year to 13.4 percent in 2007-08鈥攆rom about 6.7 million students to about 6.6 million students. Enrollment in the categories of emotional disturbance and mental retardation also went down, but students in those groups make up a far smaller slice of the IDEA pie. At the same time, though, enrollment of students classified as having an autism spectrum disorder or 鈥渙ther health impairment鈥� rose.
Although the change in direction may appear to be small, experts say it is noteworthy. But a probe into the possible reasons behind the drop in learning-disability classifications suggests that the causes are less clear and that much is still to be learned about how to classify and treat students with such disabilities.
A Positive Trend?
About 80 percent of children who are classified as learning-disabled get the label because they鈥檙e struggling to read. So, scholars say, the dropping numbers could be linked to improvements in reading instruction overall; the adoption of 鈥渞esponse to intervention,鈥� which is an instructional model intended to halt the emergence of reading problems; and a federally backed push toward early intervention with younger students before they鈥檙e labeled.
All those efforts could be serving to separate students with true disabilities from those who just haven鈥檛 been taught well in the early grades. But which program is making the most difference, and how long the effects should last, are difficult to tease out, the experts add.
After climbing for years, the number of students between the ages of 3 and 21 enrolled in special education programs began to turn in the opposite direction around the 2005-06 school year. Much of that decline can be traced to falling numbers of students classified with 鈥渟pecific learning disabilities,鈥� such as dyslexia.
SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics
At the same time, other scholars say, some of the dropping numbers could be unrelated to teaching methods. The decision to label a student as learning-disabled carries a sizable dollop of human judgment in a way that classifications like blindness or deafness do not. That means it鈥檚 possible schools could be nudging special education enrollment numbers down to avoid academic-accountability penalties or costly requirements driven by federal mandates, some observers say.
A portion of the decrease could also be tied in part to shifting classifications鈥攎oving students, for example, from learning-disabled to some other disability category.
But from the perspective of federal officials, the changes are due mostly to educational improvements. They say the national focus on RTI and improvement in schools鈥� core reading curricula are working together in a welcome way to decrease the numbers of students classified as learning-disabled.
鈥淲hen you take all of this together, to me, that鈥檚 what makes all the difference in the world,鈥� said Alexa E. Posny, the assistant secretary overseeing the Education Department鈥檚 office of special education and rehabilitative services. 鈥淚 believe we overidentify children as learning-disabled. A number of students have just not been taught how to read.鈥�
As an example, Ms. Posny offered her experiences in Kansas, where she served as the commissioner of education before moving to her current job in Washington. After the state adopted what it called a 鈥渕ultitiered system of supports,鈥� which is the state鈥檚 version of response to intervention, special education enrollment dropped from 56,328 in 2005 to 55,834 in 2008, she noted.
鈥楻eading First鈥� and RTI
The response-to-intervention approach was promoted by the federal Reading First initiative, which came to life through the No Child Left Behind Act when it was signed into law in 2002. Aimed at improving instruction among struggling readers, the initiative required schools receiving the federal grants to incorporate scientifically based reading lessons into their curricula.
鈥淩ather than rushing in to identify a specific learning disability as the primary means of providing support to a struggling student, an RTI approach first considers the overall quality of the instructional program,鈥� said Mary Beth Klotz, a nationally certified school psychologist and the current chair of the .
Then, increasingly intensive instruction, or 鈥渋nterventions,鈥� are offered to students showing early reading difficulties. The process also involves frequent progress monitoring to track students鈥� response to those lessons.
In 2009, Joseph K. Torgesen, a psychology and education professor at Florida State University, in Tallahassee, wrote an article noting a decrease in such classifications among elementary schools in Florida that adopted Reading First: In the first year of implementation, 10.4 percent of 3rd graders were identified as learning-disabled. By the third year of implementation, the classification rate among 3rd graders fell to 6 percent. Drops in identification rates were seen in kindergarten, 1st, and 2nd grades.
鈥淲e鈥檙e actually doing a slightly better job in teaching kids to read in kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on,鈥� Mr. Torgesen said. He suggests that general education teachers are more attuned to offering differentiated instruction to their students. In turn, those teachers are choosing not to refer students for special education evaluation.
But Mr. Torgesen, and some other experts, also said that it鈥檚 not yet clear if the trend marks a 鈥渃ure鈥� for those students or just a delay in their classification.
鈥淲e don鈥檛 have enough knowledge in how they hold their gains,鈥� he said.
Douglas Fuchs, a professor of special education at Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., cautions that any decrease in enrollment must be compared to academic-achievement data.
鈥淲here are the data to indicate these numbers are going down because of the effectiveness of instruction?鈥� Mr. Fuchs said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very important to be critical鈥攏ot negative, but critical鈥攐f what these prevalence numbers really mean.鈥�
Early Intervention
Some evidence of the role that early-intervention services might be playing in the enrollment trends came in earlier this year from the Education Department鈥檚 Institute of Education Sciences, the first part of what will be a multireport evaluation of special education. In it, the authors noted increases in the numbers of infants through 5-year-olds served in special education.
For example, in 1997, 564,270 children ages 3 to 5 were identified for services under the IDEA. By 2006, that number had risen to 706,242. That鈥檚 good news for supporters of early intervention, whose mantra is catching learning problems early, before they become entrenched.
The 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA allows districts the option of using 15 percent of their federal allocations for special education on early-intervention services. When a district is found to have significantly overidentified minority students for certain special education categories, the Education Department requires those early-intervention services to take place.
Margaret J. McLaughlin, a professor in the University of Maryland College Park鈥檚 department of special education, pointed to early intervention as an important factor in explaining falling learning-disability enrollment.
鈥淭here鈥檚 a number of forces that kind of converge and come together,鈥� Ms. McLaughlin said. But while early services 鈥渕ay prevent the big bulge [in classification] at the 4th grade,鈥� she said, 鈥渢here still may be a big bump at middle school. We don鈥檛 really know anything about the kids who get 鈥榙eclassified.鈥� 鈥�
Donald D. Deshler, a professor of special education at the University of Kansas, in Lawrence, said that programs for early learners are widely supported, and 鈥渨ho can argue against it? It鈥檚 like arguing against motherhood.鈥�
But even the best early-intervention programs cannot catch all children, and some energy must be saved for older students, he believes.
鈥淲e are always going to have, in certain places, kids falling between the cracks,鈥� Mr. Deshler said. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got to have some investment in what鈥檚 happening with older kids.鈥�
Nonschool Factors?
However, a number of the reasons offered for the decline in learning-disability classifications have little to do with teaching and more to do with the structures of school and federal policy. But the effects of those factors are hard to prove, much less quantify.
A from the federally funded Special Education Expenditure Project estimated that, nationwide, districts spent an average of 1.6 times more on a student with learning disabilities than they did on a general education student. Mr. Torgesen of Florida State University said that costly voter-approved mandates on matters like class-size reduction may be prompting cash-strapped Florida schools not to identify students. Administrators 鈥渄o a lot of negotiation around the issue of classification,鈥� Mr. Torgesen said, because they have to use money to keep class sizes low rather than pay for extra assistance for students.
Stephen E. Brock, a professor of special education and school psychology at California State University, Sacramento, wrote a paper in 2006 saying there is evidence that the growth in low-incidence categories such as autism spectrum disorder and 鈥渙ther health impairments鈥濃�攁 catch-all category that includes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder鈥攃orrelates with a drop in the learning-disabilities category.
In addition, Candace Cortiella, the author of a report she wrote on behalf of the New York City-based National Center for Learning Disabilities, believes that it is suspicious that the drop in special education numbers corresponds so closely to a shift in federal policy, under the No Child Left Behind law, that requires schools to highlight the performance of their special education students, among other population groups, for accountability purposes.
Schools and districts may choose not to count subgroups for accountability purposes if the subgroups are so small they are statistically unreliable. Ms. Cortiella suggested that the risk of penalties may prompt some schools to keep their enrollment in the special education subgroup low.
鈥淭here鈥檚 too much correlation between the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the drop in the numbers,鈥� she said.
Ms. Posny of the Education Department said that school districts actually have an incentive to place students in special education because they receive some federal money to educate them.
鈥淵et, I believe that states are stepping up to the plate and saying, we may not need to identify these kids,鈥� she said.
Labels are less important than results, Ms. Posny added. Special education does confer on students certain protections, such as the right to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, and those are all protections Ms. Posny said she supports strongly.
But a specific classification isn鈥檛 needed for those protections, Ms. Posny said. 鈥淲hen it comes to what we need to know to provide that child鈥檚 needs,鈥� she said, 鈥渢he label doesn鈥檛 help us with that.鈥�
