Breaking Down the Wall Between Special Education
and General Education to Meet the Needs of ALL Learners

Nancy Falsetto
National University

     The purpose of this article is to show that over the past thirty years, the wall between general and special education has been slowly crumbling. Since the marriage of NCLB 2002 and IDEA 2004, the focus has shifted to holding ALL students to the same high academic standards without separating educational opportunities. Mechanisms are being put into place in our schools all over the country to meet the needs of ALL students without requiring a special education label to obtain services. The focus is now on analyzing the student’s needs and developing an educational plan with the option of tiered level intensive interventions if necessary for the student to learn. The history of special education and general education will be explored along with the implications of the alignment of NCLB and IDEA on the future of education for ALL students.
HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
     This partnership with general education was not always in existence. The focus of special education in the beginning was segregated services for special education students (Daily, 1993). In 1975, the passage of Public Law 94-142 or the Education for All Handicapped Children Act as it came to be known, was the first national umbrella legislation that directed states to provide full education for students with disabilities, ages birth through 21 years of age. This law included language to guarantee the rights of students and their parents during the assessment process, and to place students in regular education classes whenever possible. This was the first legislation to clearly outline a process for school districts to follow in determining eligibility for services, designing individual educational and behavioral programs, and ensuring appropriate implementation of these programs. The Act established two substantive rights for students with disabilities, a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Harrigan, 2004).
     In 1990, two key pieces of legislation impacted the area of special education. The first was The Americans with Disabilities Act (Pl 101-336), which was initially directed toward adults. The focus was eliminating discrimination in the workplace for people who have a disability. The law stated that employers couldn’t consider the disability when hiring. This law required businesses with fifteen or more employed to provide specialized equipment for workers with disabilities and emphasized that facilities (including schools) had to be accessible by a person with a disability.
     The second piece of legislation in 1990 that involved special education was the reauthorization of PL-94-142 to be renamed Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA (PL 101-476). The definition of disability was broadened to include autism and traumatic brain injury. Additional related services were added, including therapeutic recreation, social work, rehabilitation counseling, and assistive technology.
     In 1997, IDEA was reauthorized to specifically address general education curriculum involvement of students with disabilities in regular education classrooms. The emphasis was now on improving teaching and learning, by focusing on the student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) as the primary tool for enhancing the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. This law made it clear that the general education classroom is considered the least restrictive environment for the majority of students and that standards based education and high expectations are essential for all students, with and without disabilities. Prior to 1997, the law did not specifically address general education curriculum involvement of students with disabilities.
     This was also the first time a regular education teacher was required to be a member of the IEP team. IDEA stated that the IEP team for a child with a disability must include at least one of the child’s regular education teachers, if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment. The law also stated that the regular education teacher, to the extent appropriate, participate in the development, review and revision of the IEP of the child (IDEA 1997).
     IDEA also required that special education students be included in general State and district-wide assessment programs. As a condition of State eligibility for funding under Part B of IDEA, States and School Districts had to include students with disabilities in assessments by providing accommodations and modifications during the administration of the tests as necessary. These assessment results were to be made available to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail as reported on the assessment results of non-disabled children.
     The Federal Regulations were completed in 1999 with specific instructions on how to implement certain parts of IDEA. For instance, one significant piece in the final regulations clarified that a child may not be determined eligible under IDEA-Part B if:

1. The determinant factor for that eligibility determination is—(i) Lack of instruction in reading or math; or (ii) limited English proficiency; and
2. The child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under 300.7(a).” (See 300.534(b).) School districts were forced to look at teaching and learning in the General education setting before a referral for special education assessment could take place.

The Federal Regulations further clarified the least restrictive environment (LRE) placements by stating that the removal of a child with a disability from an age-appropriate regular classroom solely because of needed modifications in the general curriculum was prohibited (300.552(e).
     The most recent re-authorization of IDEA occurred in 2004. This legislation came to be known as Individual With Disabilities Education Act, PL 108-446 (IDEA 2004). The main theme of this reauthorization was to align IDEA with The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that was enacted in 2002. This revision in the law focused on standards and assessments and personnel qualifications. Since there had been a dramatic increase in the number of students identified as specific learning disability prior to this legislation, the law focused on improving early intervention strategies with the goal of reducing over-identification and misidentification of special education students. Language in the bill requires districts with significant over-identification of minority students to operate pre-referral programs that work to reduce over-identification. A major contributor to over-identification was a lack of consistency in applying diagnostic criteria to determine eligibility. This lack of consistency resulted in difficulty figuring out who is not doing well academically because of a disability, and who is not doing well because of poor instruction or the lack of the opportunity to learn.
     One of the purposes of this bill was to monitor disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in various categories of disabilities (Harrigan, 2004). Reid and Knight in their article titled “Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History Grounded in Disability Studies” echoed the need for this legislation. They reported that since the early 90s, the number of disabled students who participated in federal programs increased by 30% from 1990 to 1999. They pointed out that there were inequities regarding educational opportunities for Blacks and Latinas/os in the area of special education placement and assessment. Many other disability researchers have also noted in their studies that Special education often excludes minority learners from the general education curriculum that profits Whites and defines standards (Harry & Klingner, 2006; Bejoian & Reid, 2005) thus strengthening the need for this law. Furthermore, the results of numerous studies question the practice of labeling students at all and the authors argue against the need to deliver remedial instructional series in segregated settings (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005; Reid & Valle, 2004).
Response To Intervention (RtI)
     Probably the single, most powerful part of IDEA 2004 contributing to breaking down the wall between special education and general education is the Response to Intervention (RtI) addition to the law. This section of the law was designed to help correct over identification and inconsistency by allowing school districts to determine whether they wanted to use the IQ- achievement discrepancy model defined as a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as a way to determine eligibility for special education services. As part of the identification process, a school district now has the option to use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research based interventions as part of the evaluation process (Response to Intervention) rather than the discrepancy model. The new language states that, “in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency (LEA) may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions” as a part of the required evaluation procedures. The bill also provides funds for training school personnel in effective teaching strategies to prevent over identification and misidentification of children and to ensure that students with disabilities are learning (IDEA 2004).
     Response to intervention (RtI) is an individual, comprehensive student-centered assessment and intervention model designed to address academic and behavioral difficulties of ALL students whether slow starters or those students who continue to struggle in school. As part of the general education program, students receive research-based instruction in their general education classroom. To improve academic achievement and behavior, school personnel collect and analyze progress-monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of interventions and to make instructional modifications. RtI is a very effective way to limit special education referrals for economically disadvantaged students and further ensure that school districts will reach adequate yearly progress targets under the No Child Left Behind Act (Sweeney, 2007). RtI brings together early intervention and a school-wide process to determine if students respond to scientific, research-based intervention for the purpose of special education identification. This process obtains results and assists many students from being placed in special education programs (Special Edge, 2006). In the state of California, the California Department of Education (CDE is guiding this transformation. The Special Education Division of (CDE) has partnered with other general education divisions of CDE to assist schools in California in the implementation of RtI.
     This addition to IDEA 2004 created a monumental change between the roles of special and general education teachers. It emphasizes a process whereby schools look to how the system addresses student needs, allows for multiple attempts to provide assistance and means students do not have to “wait to fail” to receive assistance (Special Education Report, 2006). The practice of RtI reflects the marriage of legislative policy and research practice of NCLB and IDEA 2004. Schools were given the task of creating tiered level intensive intervention models to address the needs of ALL learners. Prior to this legislation, programs and strategies previously reserved for special education students were not available at the school for any student who may need assistance. With RtI, assistance is given immediately without having to wait for a long, drawn out assessment process to declare eligibility for services. Special education teachers join general education teachers in providing early intervention, and high quality research-based instruction in the regular education settings. The focus is also on using assessment data to guide instructional decisions at the individual, classroom, grade, building, and district level. Teachers are trained to match student need with the type and intensity of resources/strategies appropriate (Marzano, 2001). Students who fail with these intensive interventions are more likely to have true learning disabilities.
Intervention Models
     Since this law provides incentives for whole-school approaches to improve academic achievement, many school districts around the country have come up with intervention models to address the needs of ALL learners. Many school districts have implemented a three-tier intensive intervention model. One school district has created such a model for collaborative intervention called Schools Attuned, a professional development and service delivery program. This program allows educators to come together with a shared vision, and common principles (Weiner & Murawski, 2005). General and special education teachers are valued for their expertise, and work as a cohesive team to serve all students before they reach special education. This three-tiered model for collaborative intervention enables staff to be part of a school as it transforms its thinking about how students will be supported. Faculty is supported in their professional development for meeting these students’ needs (Weiner &Murawski, 2005). With this change in the law, school districts throughout the country are planning and implementing these types of programs that foster true collaboration and lasting change based on a common language, a shared vision, a set of guiding principles and best practice interventions to meet the needs of ALL students. This model does not eliminate special education services, but shifts the focus to meeting the needs of the general education population by making placement in special education the last resort for a student (Weiner & Murawski, 2005; Canter, 2004).
Highly Qualified Special Education Teachers
     Another area in the law that serves to break the wall down between special education and general education is the issue of having highly qualified staff serving special education students. The law spells out that special education teachers now must be held to the same high standards as the general education teachers, which is aligned with NCLB. For any special education teacher, the term “highly qualified” has the same meaning given the term in section 9109 of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (IDEA 2004). The general standard specified in the law was that special education teachers are to be appropriately and adequately trained and prepared with content knowledge and skills to improve academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities. If a special education teacher is teaching a core academic subject and providing instruction, then he/she must meet the requirements to be certified in special education. This means the elimination of waivers, emergency credentials, and permits.
     Highly qualified special education teachers must hold a special education license, obtain full state special education certification and fulfill subject matter competency requirements. There are several routes to certification that a special education teacher could take, all with the end result of being highly qualified.
HISTORY OF GENERAL EDUCATION
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Pl 89-10), also referred to as the ‘War on Poverty’ and Title I was passed on April 9, 1965. This legislation constituted the most important educational component of the ‘War on Poverty’ launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Title I allocated large resources to meet the needs of educationally deprived children, especially through compensatory programs for the poor.
“In recognition of the special educational needs of low-income families and the impact that concentration of low-income families have on the ability of local Educational agencies to support adequate educational programs, the Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide financial assistance…to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool programs) which contribute to meeting the special educational needs of educationally deprived children” (Section 201, Elementary and Secondary School Act, 1965).
     An assumption was that children from low-income homes required more educational services than children from affluent homes. At that time, Title I funding allocated one billion dollars a year to schools with a high concentration of low-income children. This also established the beginning of the Head Start preschool program for disadvantaged children making sure that they have an equal opportunity based on ‘readiness’ for first grade. This was also the beginning of Bilingual Education, which targeted primarily Spanish-speaking children.
     The Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 was amended in 1968 with Title VII, resulting in the Bilingual Education Act, which offered federal aid to local school districts to assist them to address the needs of children with limited English-speaking ability.
     In 1970, the Elementary and Secondary Act (PL 91-230) was amended. This act consolidated all existing legislature into Title VI (Education of the Handicapped Act). The act recognized learning disabilities as eligible for funding.
     In 1974, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 93-380) was amended. This Act formed the foundation for PL 94-142. It was the umbrella legislation directing states to provide full education for students with disabilities, ages birth –21 years, to guarantee their rights and the parents rights during assessment process, and to place students in regular education classes whenever possible. This began the mainstream process.
No Child Left Behind Act, 2002 (NCLB)
     On January 8, 2002, George Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This act reauthorized and amended federal education programs that were established under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The major focus of NCLB also known as ESEA is to provide ALL children with a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education. The United States Department of Education emphasized four major parts within the bill:

1. Increased Accountability-Strengthened Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide accountability systems covering ALL public schools and students. These systems must be based on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. If a school district fails to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals, it could be subject to restructuring measures to get it back on track.
2. Flexibility- allows school districts flexibility in how they use federal education funds to improve student achievement.
3. Research-based education- emphasizes educational programs and practices that have been proven effective through scientific research. A major goal of this bill was to ensure that every child could read by the third grade. The Federal Government invested in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades via the Reading First Initiative. One major benefit of this approach would be reduced identification of children for special education services due to a lack of appropriate reading instruction in their early years. This bill further strengthened IDEA 2004 in that it clarifies that a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is “lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as defined by NCLB.
4. Parent options-increases the choices available to the parents of students attending Title I schools. This law also specified sanctions, including limited voucher- like interdistrict transfer options and parent selected tutoring if a school is identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.

Content Standards
     With the passage of NCLB, standards-based reform has taken center stage in the educational world (Voltz, 2006). The standards-based reform movement calls for clear, measurable standards for ALL school students. Expectations are raised for all students’ performance. Curriculum, assessments, and professional development are aligned to standards. Standards-based school reform has become a predominant issue facing public schools. By 1998, almost every state had implemented or was in the early stages of implementing, academic standards for their students in math and reading. Principals and teachers have received bonuses or been fired, students have been promoted or retained in their current grade, and legislation has been passed so that high school students will graduate or be denied a diploma based on test results (Voltz, 2006).
     NCLB requires states to develop challenging academic content standards for all students in the state in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10 through 12 for reading and language arts and mathematics (and, beginning in the 2007-08 school year, science). These standards are to specify what children should know and be able to do, contain coherent and rigorous content and encourage the teaching of advanced skills (Science and Engineering Indicators, 2002).
     The law also requires states to set academic performance standards, aligned with the content standards, that indicate at least two levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) that determine how well students are mastering the content standards, and two lower levels of achievement (basic and below basic) to provide information on how low-achieving students are progressing toward mastery of the content standards. States must set timelines for AYP that ensure that, no later than the 2013-14 school year, ALL students, in ALL defined subgroups, meet or exceed the state’s proficient levels of academic achievement (Wikipedia, free encyclopedia).

IMPLICATIONS OF NCLB ALIGNMENT WITH IDEA 2004

CONCLUSION
     Over the past thirty years, the wall has slowly been crumbling between general education and special education in determining the way students receive academic assistance in our schools. The alignment of IDEA and NCLB has further ensured that ALL students will receive academic support without having to go through the arduous process of obtaining a special education label. The hope is that providing respectful, integrated, age-appropriate classrooms for students of all races, classes, and abilities will facilitate more equitable K-16 educational opportunities and improve other life chances (Reid & Knight, 2006; IDEA 2004). State Special Education Directors hope that the re-authorization of NCLB next year will more closely link special education and general education and become more in line with IDEA 2004. Some state officials feel that IDEA 2004 is duplicative of efforts already required under the current NCLB Act, and once NCLB is re-authorized, the duplications will disappear (Samuels, 2006). We now have special education and general education more in alignment than ever before and with the new re-authorization of NCLB in the coming year, the laws will be more closely aligned and the further assist in breaking down the wall.

REFERENCES

Canter, Andrea (2004). A Problem Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement. Principal Leadership. Volume 5, Issue 4.
Harrigan, Patrick G. (2004). A Historical and Legal Examination of the Free Appropriate Public Education and the Least
       Restrictive Environment Provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act from 1975 to 2003. Ed.D. Dissertation,
       Dowling College, New York.
Hoff, David J. (2005). States to Get Options On NCLB Law. Education Week, Volume 1, Issue 31. Individuals With Disabilities
       Education Act (2004).
Marzano, Robert J., Pickering, Debra J., & Pollock, Jane E., (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works-Research Based
       Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia.
Reid, Kim D. & Knight, Michelle, G. (2006). Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History Grounded
       in Disability Studies. Educational Researcher, Volume 35, Issue 6.
Samuels, Christina A. (2006). Special Education Directors Hope to Sway Policy. Education Week, Volume 26, Issue 13.
Sweeney, Jeanne (2007). RTI Finds New role in Title I Program, Education Daily, Volume 40, Issue 22.
Tilly, David W. (2006) What Is It? Why Do It? Is It Worth It? The Special Edge, Volume 19, Number 2.
Understanding The Steps to Take When Conducting RtI. (2006). Special Education Report, Volume 32, Issue 6.
U. S. Department of Education (2007). Executive Summary of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from
       http:// www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html on April 3, 2007.
U. S. Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind is Working. Retrieved from
       http://www.gov.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html on March 3, 2007.
Voltz, Deborah L. (2006). Urban Special Education in the Context of Standards-Based Reform.
       Remedial and Special Education, Volume 27, Issue 6.
Waldron, K.A. (19960 Introduction to Special Education: The Inclusive Classroom. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.
Weiner, Ivor & Murawski, Wendy W. (2005). Schools Attuned: A Model for Collaborative Intervention. Intervention in
       School and Clinic, Volume 40, Issue 5.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students
       With Disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, Volume 38, Issue 4.
Your NCLB Advisor (2006, June). LRP Publications, Volume 36, Issue 4.