Better access to special ed needed

Children in Texas public schools need better access to special education.

In 2004, the state began limiting access to special education services to children with autism, dyslexia, mental illnesses, speech impediments, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and many other medical conditions.

The move has reportedly saved the state billions of dollars, but at what cost? Limiting access to special education in Texas public schools is a shortsighted cost-saving measure that could prove financially devastating in the long run.

Children whose education needs are not met are less likely to graduate from high school or find gainful employment as adults. They are also apt to have to rely on government-funded services later in life.

Houston Chronicle reporter Brian M. Rosenthal’s exposé of the Texas Education Agency’s policies that encourage the state’s more than 1,200 school districts to limit the number of special education students on their campuses to 8.5 percent has met with swift action from the U.S. Department of Education.

The agency has ordered TEA to eliminate the 8.5 percent benchmark on special education enrollment unless it can prove that it has not kept children with disabilities from receiving services they need.

That will not be easy.

Rosenthal’s most recent reporting indicates many school districts, such as the Laredo Independent School District, purged hundreds of children from special education programs after the TEA came down on them for their level of enrollment.

There has also been much public outcry in Texas from elected state officials, parents and advocates who were unaware TEA officials had arbitrarily decided in 2004 to set a cap on the number of special education students a school district could have enrolled.

There was no formula used to set the cap at 8.5 percent. What is even more appalling is the extreme measures some school districts used to keep the special education enrollment down to comply with TEA directive.

Many school districts made families go through extraordinary measures to have their children evaluated for special education services. Some districts even went as far as making the special education application forms available only at their administration offices away from the neighborhood campuses.

Some parents gave up the process in frustration and enrolled their children in private schools. Others resorted to home-schooling after encountering repeated roadblocks.

How many children have been left behind due to this bad public policy decision that few were aware existed?

The year TEA implemented the cap, about 12 percent of public school students were receiving some form of special education. Eleven years later, that number has miraculously plummeted to the magical 8.5 percent figure state education officials pulled out of thin air.

TEA officials claim the higher number can be attributed to over-identification of students needing special education services. They also told Rosenthal new teaching techniques have lowered the number of children with learning disabilities.

If that is indeed so, school districts in the rest of the country that have special education populations in the double digits need to hear about it.

Regrettably, it’s beginning to look more and more like none of the state’s special education numbers is based on reality.