Skip over navigation

Journal Issue: Children with Disabilities Volume 22 Number 1 Spring 2012

Disability and the Education System
Laudan Aron Pamela Loprest

Endnotes

  1. For a review of the impact of childhood disabilities on families, see Susan L. Neely-Barnes and David A. Dia, "Families of Children with Disabilities: A Review of Literature and Recommendations for Interventions," Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention 5, no. 3 (2008): 93–107.
  2. D. Wayne Osgood, E. Michael Foster, and Mark E. Courtney, "Vulnerable Populations and the Transition to Adulthood," Future of Children 10, no. 1 (2010): 209–29.
  3. For more about the history of disability rights, see Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, eds., The New Disability History: American Perspectives (New York University Press, 2001).
  4. The Section 504 regulations issued in 1977 mandating specific antidiscrimination protections such as removing architectural and communications barriers and providing accommodations formed the basis of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which was enacted thirteen years later in July 1990. The ADA guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities similar to those provided on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. Title II of the ADA extends these guarantees to all activities of state and local governments, including public education, regardless of the size of the government entity or whether it receives federal funding (Section 504 is limited to recipients of federal funding).
  5. Its original name was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142). The law was amended significantly in 1997 and 2004.
  6. For a thoughtful review and history of standards-based reforms, see Laura S. Hamilton, Brian M. Stecher, and Kun Yuan, "Standards-Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions" (Washington: Center on Education Policy, 2009). See also National Council on Disability, "The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report" (Washington: 2008); and Laudan Y. Aron, "An Overview of Alternative Education," Report to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (Washington: Urban Institute, 2006).
  7. Jose Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities," NCEE 2010-4006 (National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
  8. Neal Halfon and others, "The Changing Landscape of Disability in Childhood," Future of Children 22, no. 1 (2012).
  9. IDEA regulations define other health impairment as "having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that (a) is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome, and (b) adversely affects a child's educational performance," cited from Janie Scull and Amber Winkler, "Shifting Trends in Special Education" (Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2011), appendix B.
  10. Jose Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities" (see note 7).
  11. Wade Horn and Douglas Tynan, "Time to Make Special Education ‘Special' Again," in Rethinking Special Education for a New Century, edited by Chester E. Finn and others (Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Progressive Policy Institute, 2001), p. 23.
  12. U.S. Department of Education, 29th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2010), table 1-11, p. 67.
  13. Russell Skiba and others, "Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges," Exceptional Children 74, no. 3 (2008): 264–88.
  14. Among the remaining 5 percent, 3 percent were enrolled in separate schools (public or private) for students with disabilities, 1 percent chose to attend regular private schools, and the others (less than 1 percent) were in a variety of settings such as a separate (public or private) residential facility, hospital, or correctional facility, or were homebound.
  15. U.S. Department of Education, 29th Annual Report to Congress (see note 12).
  16. Amy-Jane Griffiths and others, Response to Intervention: Research for Practice (Alexandria, Va.: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc., 2007).
  17. Robert J. Wedl, Response to Intervention: An Alternative to Traditional Eligibility Criteria for Students with Disabilities (Saint Paul: Education Evolving, 2005).
  18. Scull and Winkler, "Shifting Trends in Special Education" (see note 9).
  19. Edward G. Carr and others, "Positive Behavior Support: Evolution of an Applied Science," Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 4 (2002): 4–16.
  20. George Sugai and others, "Applying Positive Behavior Support and Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools," Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 2 (2000): 131–43.
  21. Anita Scarborough and others, "A National Look at Children and Families Entering Early Intervention," Exceptional Children 70, no. 4 (2004): 469–83.
  22. Elizabeth Hoffman, "Head Start Participants, Programs, Families, and Staff in 2009" (Washington: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2010).
  23. Martha Diefendorf and Susan Goode, "Minibibliography: The Long-Term Economic Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Intervention Programs" (Washington: NECTAC Clearinghouse on Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education, 2005).
  24. Jo Shackelford, "State and Jurisdictional Eligibility Definitions for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities under IDEA," NECTAC Notes 21 (Washington: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2006).
  25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, "Most Medicaid Children in Nine States Are Not Receiving All Preventive Screening Services," OEI-05-08-00520 (2010).
  26. Kathleen Hebbeler and others, "Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Their Families: Participants, Services, and Outcomes: Final Report of the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2007).
  27. Delia Malone and Peggy Gallagher, "Transition to Preschool Special Education: A Review of the Literature," Early Education and Development 20, no. 4 (2009): 584–602.
  28. J. G. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates from 1969–2000," Journal of Special Education Leadership 18, no. 1 (2005): 5–13.
  29. U.S. Department of Education, "Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Summary" (2010) (www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget11/summary/index.html).
  30. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided an additional $11.3 billion in grants to states under IDEA Part B in 2009.
  31. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates" (see note 28).
  32. Mary T. Moore and others, "Patterns in Special Education Service Delivery and Cost" (Washington: Decision Resources Corporation, 1988).
  33. K. Mahitivanichcha and Thomas Parrish, "The Implications of Fiscal Incentives on Identification Rates and Placement in Special Education: Formulas for Influencing Best Practices," Journal of Education Finance 31 (2005): 1–22; Elizabeth Dhuey and Stephen Lipscomb, "Funding Special Education by Capitation: Evidence from State Finance Reforms," Education Finance and Policy 6, no. 2 (2011): 168–201; Sally Kwak, "The Impact of Intergovernmental Incentives on Student Disability Rates," Public Finance Review 30, no. 1 (2010): 41–73.
  34. Chambers and others, "Special Education Spending Estimates" (see note 28).
  35. Ibid.
  36. For a review of the literature, see National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition, "National Standards and Quality Improvements: Transition Toolkit for Systems Improvement" (Washington: 2005).
  37. States are allowed to exclude some students with disabilities who cannot participate in testing.
  38. Naomi Chudowsky and Victor Chudowsky, "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for Students with Disabilities?" (Washington: Center for Education Policy, 2009).
  39. Suzanne Eckes and Julie Swando, "Special Education Subgroups under NCLB: Issues to Consider," Teachers College Record 111, no. 11 (2009): 2479–504.
  40. Chudowsky and Chudowsy, "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for Students with Disabilities?" (see note 38).
  41. Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities" (see note 7).
  42. National Center for Education Statistics, "The Nation's Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics 2009 National and Pilot State Results" (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
  43. Mary Wagner and others, "The Academic Achievement and Functional Performance of Youth with Disabilities" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2006).
  44. These data are from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth Transitions 2 for students in high school in the fall of the 2000–01 school year who had left school; see Mary Wagner and others, "Changes over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2005).
  45. Methods and data for calculating graduation rates vary and are not strictly comparable to the rate reported for youth with disabilities. The rate used here is the averaged freshman graduation rate for school year 2002–03, which reports the percentage of ninth graders that graduate four years later. See M. Seastrom and others, "The Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for Public High Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Years 2002–03 and 2003–04" (Washington: National Center for Education Statistics, 2006).
  46. Blackorby and others, "Patterns in the Identification of and Outcomes for Children and Youth with Disabilities" (see note 7).
  47. Julie Gwynne and others, "What Matters for Staying on Track and Graduating in Chicago Public Schools: A Focus on Students with Disabilities" (Consortium for Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago, 2009).
  48. For examples, see Thomas Wells, Gary Sandefur, and Dennis Hogan, "What Happens after the High School Years among Young Persons with Disabilities?" Social Forces 82, no. 2 (2003): 803–32; Pamela Loprest and David Wittenburg, "Post Transition Experiences of Former Child SSI Recipients," Social Service Review 81, no. 4 (2007): 583–608; Phyllis Levine and Mary Wagner, "Transition for Young Adults Who Received Special Education Services as Adolescents: A Time of Challenge and Change," in On Your Own without a Net, edited by D. Wayne Osgood and others (University of Chicago Press, 2005).
  49. Renee Cameto and others, "Transition Planning for Students with Disability: A Special Topic Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2004).
  50. Paul Wehman, "Life beyond the Classroom: Transition Strategies for Young People with Disabilities" (Baltimore: Brookes Publishing, 2006).
  51. Lynn Newman and others, "Comparisons across Time of the Outcomes of Youths with Disabilities up to Four Years after High School: A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2010-3008)" (Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI International, 2010).
  52. Pamela Loprest and Elaine Maag, "The Relationship between Early Disability Onset and Education and Employment" (Washington: Urban Institute, 2003).
  53. Wagner and others, "Changes over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities" (see note 44).
  54. David Johnson and others, "Current Challenges Facing Secondary Education and Transition Services: What Research Tells Us," Exceptional Children 68, no. 4 (2002): 519–31.
  55. Osgood, Foster, and Courtney, "Vulnerable Populations and the Transition to Adulthood" (see note 2).
  56. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, "A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families" (Washington: 2002), p. 2.
  57. U.S. Department of Education, "Determination Letters on State Implementation of the IDEA" (www2.ed.gov/print/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/factsheet.html).
  58. Chester E. Finn and others, Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Progressive Policy Institute, 2001); American Youth Policy Forum and Center for Education Policy, "Twenty-Five Years of Educating Children with Disabilities: The Good News and the Work Ahead" (Washington: American Youth Policy Forum 2001); President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, "A New Era" (see note 56).
  59. Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, "CCD Statement on Release of Report from the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education" (Washington, July 9, 2002).