Math and science are core to the IDEA: breaking the racial and poverty lines.

• Author: Sun, Jeffrey C.
• Position: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Introduction I. Legislation and Regulations Governing Students with Disabilities A. Early Education Laws Placing Attention on Students with Disabilities B. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Amendments C. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) II. Race and Poverty A. Societal Barriers B. Misidentification and Misclassification C. Restrictive Settings and Reduced Outcomes III. Findings from Eighth Grade Testing A. Data Sorting, Coding, and Analysis Procedures B. Racially Diverse Urban District with Very High Student Poverty and Very Large Student Population. C. White-Dominated, Suburban Districts with Very Low Student Poverty D. Predominantly White, Rural Districts with High Student Poverty. E. Conclusion IV. IDEA Policy Reform A. Act on and Include Science and Math Assessments with a Value Added Proposition Approach B. Expand Federal Financial Support to Explore Academic Strategies. C. Incorporate University Partnerships and an Academic Focus. Conclusion Introduction

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and, as amended, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), (1) provides protections for students with disabilities in grades pre-K-12 to ensure that they may receive a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE). (2) While serving as a civil rights law to ensure fairness in education for students with disabilities, disparities based on race, (3) sex, (4) and family income (5) levels have unfortunately accompanied IDEA implementation. These issues associated with IDEA execution raise questions about the genuine nature of FAPE and its effects on various societal groups.

With IDEA'S last reauthorization, the heightened disparity with respect to race became evident in the data. These concerns were brought to the attention of Congress and the U.S. Department of Education by way of various reports and concerns, which resulted in an attempt to remedy these racial disparities. (6) Among numerous other objectives, the regulations arising from IDEA (and IDEIA) aimed to reinforce protections and ensure academic success for students with disabilities, especially racial minority students. (7) At the time of IDEA'S most recent reauthorization, the data was abysmally clear: racial differences already existed in special education identification (8) and graduation rates. (9) Congress's awareness and increased regulatory attention not only mandated funding and different program responses, but also resulted in the creation of many educational innovations for students with disabilities. (10) Congress also aided the process further with an examination of the response to intervention (Rtl). (11)

Educational interventions are typically instructional programs consisting of a planned set of procedures to address cognitive, behavioral, or social challenges that students face. (12) RtI represents systematic actions that target children's areas of specific need as soon as those needs become apparent. (13) Many reportedly innovative and successful intervention programs have emerged since the enactment and reauthorization of the IDEA, particularly in urban school districts. (14) These interventions and other supporting programs typically focus on remedying the educational gaps of students with disabilities through communication and language arts skills. (15) Conversely, while math and science remain core subject areas, these academic subjects have been less accessible to students, particularly urban students and certain racial minorities in urban districts (namely African-Americans and Hispanics). (16) This deficiency is alarming, given that the literature on student performance and competitive employment status suggest "clear connections between the 21st century workforce" and proficiency in scientific and technical skills. (17)

This Article argues that the IDEA does not adequately address quality learning in two critical, core academic subjects--math and science. (18) Specifically, it asserts that the IDEA'S funding and its accountability provisions (even those tied to the No Child Left Behind Act) fail to provide sufficient measures to ensure that racial minorities (particularly African-Americans and Hispanics) and low-income students in urban areas who are identified as having a disability, are prepared to achieve significant, incremental progress in math and science. (19) This deficiency is a major concern due to the significant proportion of racial minorities and economically disadvantaged students who find themselves categorized as "disabled" under IDEA'S terms (discussed at length in Part II). In turn, the law presents a new social stratification that highlights the disability divide. In building the authors' argument, Part I of this Article presents a general overview of the development of the IDEA and its supporting regulations to demonstrate how the goals of the legislation have evolved over time. Part II addresses the high proportion of students with disabilities from certain disadvantaged groups--particularly African-American and Hispanic students from low-income families residing in urban environments--and the problems of misidentification and misclassification. Drawing heavily from one midwestern state's data, Part III highlights the significant deficiencies in the subject areas of math and science among students with disabilities from disadvantaged groups, and raises questions about special education policies and practices. Finally, Part IV offers possible solutions. In the form of action items, the authors propose more aggressive and intentional policies to remedy the disability divide such as demonstrating math and science progress based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and establishing university partnerships to identify scientifically sound and contextually appropriate instructional interventions.

1. LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

   Part I examines federal laws pertaining to students with disabilities, tracing their evolutionary significance and highlighting policy omissions. U.S. policies on disability education started with broad awareness of, and preliminary program development for, children with disabilities using grant programs. (20) The law was fairly unstructured in terms of specific goals. It was largely a block grant supporting state facilities and educational centers for children with disabilities. Special education policies have, however, maintained a consistent focus on training teachers--though with varying levels of expectations. (21) By (1975), U.S. policymakers eventually shifted their focus to legislation grounded in civil rights: the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (22) Later, as the law became reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, reporting of student data to help assess learning became incorporated into the process, and parental rights and process mediators entered into the picture. (23) Today, federal policies such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of (2004especially when read in conjunction with the No Child Left Behind Act of (2001) ) present more defined goals leading to intended targeted outcomes and educational responses. This recent federal policy draws on established scientific research to determine proper support services. (24) Nonetheless, special education policies still neglect to require significant, incremental progress in math and science, despite the importance of those subjects on the functional capacities for twenty-first century workforce skills.

   1. Early Education Laws Placing Attention on Students with Disabilities

      Focusing on fostering educational opportunities for every child, Congress took an initial step to include assistance for students with disabilities when it amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of (1965). (25) The law incorporated "a grant program 'for the purposes of assisting the States in the initiation, expansion, and improvement of programs and projects ... for the education of handicapped children.'" (26) Five years later, Congress repealed the amended section and established a grant program known as the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA). (27) The program's primary purpose was to include the development of educational resources and training personnel for educating the handicapped." (28) Ironically, the enactment of the (1966) amendment and the (1970) Act contained no specific guidelines as to the application of the grant funds. (29) Nonetheless, the law recognized that educator involvement with respect to training and the inclusion of more resources would aid in supporting students with disabilities. (30)

      While initial legislation supporting students with disabilities presented an ambiguous or aimless goal, the judicial environment reshaped special education policy when two federal district cases were handed down in 1972. 31 Through judicial policymaking, both Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth (P.A.R.C.) earmarked the responsibility of public schools in facilitating the educational process for students with disabilities. (32) Congress responded in 1974 by amending the EHA and providing for three significant changes. (33) Specifically, the law (1) provided the Commissioner of Education with the responsibility for funding qualified state programs based on educational standards; (34) (2) transformed the former EHA into civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination based on the severity of the disability; (35) and (3) sought to maximize the number of children on a "regular" education track, avoiding separate classes or schooling, when possible, for students with disabilities. (36)

      A year later, Congress made several other amendments to the EHA. (37) During discussions of the law and the proposed...