Criticism

• Changes in thinking about special education have contained both 'constructive' and 'deconstructive' elements.^[23] In the constructive tradition, arguments have rested in the positive value of a plural, equitable system for all rooted in human rights -- an inclusive system. Here, it is argued that special education separates and discriminates against those who are disabled or different. In the deconstructive tradition arguments have centred on the harmful consequences that may emerge from separate systems and pedagogies. It has also been pointed out that the record of special education and special pedagogy in terms of student outcomes has not been positive, especially given the very beneficial resources allocated to it (up to 15 times as much spent on a special school student as a mainstream school student). Both traditions, 'constructive' and 'deconstructive', have argued for an end to separate education systems.
• Beneficial classrooms designed for special education students, sometimes called resource rooms, are criticized by those who seek to include all students, regardless of individual needs, in the same classroom.
• Special education as implemented in public schools has been criticized because the qualification criteria for services are extremely variable from one education agency to another. In the United States, all Local and State Education Agencies must use classification and labeling models that are aligned with the federal definitions, outlined the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).^{[citation needed]}
• At-risk students(those with educational needs that are not associated with a disability) are often placed in classes with students with disabilities. Critics assert that placing at-risk students in the same classes as disabled students may impede the educational progress of people with disabilities.^{[citation needed]}
• Special education classes under the mainstreaming model have been criticized for its watered-down curriculum.^[24]
• The practice of inclusion has been criticized by advocates and some parents of children with disabilities because some of these students require instructional methods that differ dramatically from typical classroom methods. Critics assert that it is not possible to deliver effectively two or more very different instructional methods in the same classroom. As a result, the educational progress of students who depend on different instructional methods to learn often fall even further behind their peers without disabilities.^{[citation needed]}
• Parents of typically developing children sometimes fear that the special needs of a single "fully included" student will take critical levels of attention and energy away from the rest of the class and thereby impair the academic achievements of all students.^{[citation needed]}
• Some parents, advocates, and students have concerns about the eligibility criteria and its application. In some cases, parents and students protest the students' placement into special education programs. For example, a student may be placed into the special education programs due to a mental health condition such as OCD, depression, anxiety, panic attacks or ADHD, while the student and his parents believe that the condition is adequately managed through medication and outside therapy. In other cases, students whose parents believe they require the additional support of special education services are denied participation in the program based on the eligibility criteria.^{[citation needed]}
• An alternative to homogenization and lockstep standardization is proposed, using the Sudbury model schools, an alternative approach in which children learn at their own pace rather than following a chronologically-based curriculum.^{[25] [26]} Proponents of unschooling have also claimed that children raised in this method do not suffer from learning disabilities.

Drop Out Rates

Special education students are more likely to drop out of school than their non-disabled peers. This trend holds true for students with all types of disabilities. Arguably, students with specific learning disabilities have lesser degrees of disability than some of the other exceptionalities. Despite this, students with LDs still have a high rate of drop outs. Further, the problem appears to be seen among students in many countries. Parts of Canada report that as many as 60% of students with learning or behavior disorders do not complete school. In the United States, the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition reports that special education students are twice as likely to drop out as regular education students.

The cost of the high drop out rate is incalculably high with profound social and economic implications for the students, their families, and society. Drop outs have high rates of unemployment, make less money, are more likely to need public assistance, and are more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system.

Researchers theorize that high special education dropout rates are correlated with multiple factors such as:

• Low economic status and race;
• Student relationships with family, peers, and school staff;
• Declining academic performance, particularly beginning in sixth grade;
• Continued low grades in high school and poor attendance;
• Lack of motivation; and
• Substance abuse.

Beyond characteristics that place a child at-risk for dropping out, researchers are finding that the school itself may be a strong determining factor as well. Schools that have overall low achievement, a less experienced teaching staff, higher numbers of students per teacher, and less spending per student tend to have higher dropout rates. Schools with dropout rates higher than 60% are sometimes referred to as dropout factories. Successful transition from high school to college, vocational program, or employment is also a factor that correlates to dropout rates, suggesting that preparing students in advance for success after high school may influence student motivation to complete high school.^[27]

African-Americans in Special Education

The studies found that grossly disproportionate numbers of minority students are identified as eligible for services, and too often placed in isolated and restrictive educational settings. When compared with their white counterparts, African-American children were almost three times more likely to be labeled "mentally retarded," according to a paper by Thomas B. Parrish, managing research scientist at the American Institutes of Research."^[28]

New statistics compiled on each state show both over and under-representation of minorities in the categories for "mental retardation," "specific learning disabilities," and "emotional disturbance." African-American students in Connecticut, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Nebraska are more than four times as likely to be identified as mentally retarded than white students living in those states. In Florida, Alabama, Delaware, New Jersey, and Colorado, the number of African-American students identified as mentally retarded was more than three times that of white students.^[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_education