A potential ‘fix’ for special education? – K-12 Dive

Report on Special Education System Reform and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) posits that the current special education framework functions as a stopgap for a fundamentally flawed education delivery system. This system fails to adequately serve millions of students, thereby challenging the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The increasing number of students qualifying for special education services highlights the unsustainability of the current model and necessitates a comprehensive overhaul to ensure inclusive and equitable education for all learners.

Systemic Deficiencies and Contradiction to SDG 4: Quality Education

The existing structure creates a dual system of “special” and “general” education that systematically fails to provide equitable opportunities. This approach undermines SDG Target 4.5, which calls for equal access to all levels of education for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable children.

An Exclusionary and Inequitable Framework

The report argues that the special education delivery model is exclusionary and lacks reliable, unbiased methods for determining eligibility for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This creates significant disparities in educational support.

• Students with learning challenges rooted in factors like poverty or language barriers often do not qualify for support, while those with a formal disability diagnosis receive legally protected services.
• This selective support system directly contributes to inequalities of outcome, a key concern of SDG 10.
• The general education system is designed for uniformity, not difference, making it ill-equipped to provide an inclusive and effective learning environment as mandated by SDG Target 4.a.

Emphasis on Compliance Over Student Outcomes

The current system prioritizes compliance with IDEA regulations over accountability for student outcomes, such as achievement and graduation rates. This focus on process rather than results is inconsistent with the core objective of SDG 4, which is to ensure effective and quality learning for all.

Analysis of Identification Trends and Impact on SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

Data reveals a significant and sustained increase in the number of students qualifying for special education, indicating systemic pressures and highlighting inequalities in how learning challenges are addressed.

Growth in IDEA Eligibility

The proportion of public school students (ages 6-21) qualifying for IDEA services has grown substantially over five decades.

1. In 1976, 9% of all public school students qualified for IDEA services.
2. By 2023, this figure had risen to approximately 15%.
3. This growth has been driven primarily by students diagnosed with learning disabilities, autism, and “other health impairments.”
4. In 2022-23, these three categories accounted for approximately two-thirds of all students receiving special education services, compared to just one-quarter in 1976.

This data illustrates how eligibility criteria, such as the addition of autism to IDEA in 1990, directly impact identification rates and the allocation of educational resources, which can exacerbate inequalities if not applied through a needs-based lens.

Recommendations for a Unified and Sustainable Education System

To align the education system with the principles of SDG 4 and SDG 10, the CRPE report proposes a fundamental shift away from a categorical model toward a unified, needs-based system.

A New Framework for Student Support

The core recommendation is to create a more effective and equitable system for addressing the learning challenges of all students.

• Establish a needs-based system to identify and support all educationally disadvantaged students, with or without a formal disability diagnosis, to “level the playing field.”
• Utilize assessment tools to more rapidly identify and act upon the individual academic and behavioral needs of every student.
• Eliminate the rigid division between general and special education to foster a truly inclusive environment.

Reforming Educator Preparation and Instructional Delivery

Achieving a unified system requires changes to teacher training and classroom support structures.

• Reform educator preparation programs to train all teachers to work in diverse general education classrooms, supported by tutors and paraprofessionals.
• Protect and maintain specialized instruction, educational environments, and support services for students with the most significant needs.

These reforms aim to build a more resilient, equitable, and effective institution, aligning with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by promoting accountability for outcomes and ensuring that all students can succeed.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on special education reform directly addresses and connects to two primary Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The core of the article is about the failure of the current education delivery system and the need for reform to ensure all students, regardless of their learning challenges, receive a quality education. It discusses issues of inclusion, teacher training, and creating a more effective system for addressing diverse student needs.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights significant inequalities within the education system. It describes the special education system as “exclusionary,” creating a divide between students who receive a formal disability diagnosis and legal protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other students who struggle due to factors like poverty or language but do not qualify for the same level of support. The proposed reforms aim to “level the playing field” and reduce these disparities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
   • Explanation: The article’s central argument is that the current system is a “stopgap for a faulty” education delivery system that underserves millions. The call to reform the system to address all students’ learning challenges is directly aimed at providing an equitable and quality education that leads to better outcomes.
2. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.
   • Explanation: The article explicitly details the inequity in access to educational support. It contrasts a student with a diagnosed learning disability who receives “individualized supports and legal rights under IDEA” with another student facing similar challenges due to poverty or poor instruction who gets “inadequate instruction.” This highlights a failure to ensure equal access for all vulnerable children.
3. Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing States.
   • Explanation: The article critiques traditional teacher preparation programs that offer “separate pathways for special and general education.” It recommends a new model where programs “train teachers to work in general education classrooms — teaching students who have diverse needs.” This directly addresses the need to improve the qualifications and training of the teacher workforce to create more inclusive classrooms.
4. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • Explanation: The proposal to establish a “needs-based system to identify educationally disadvantaged students with and without diagnosed disabilities” is a direct attempt to promote the educational inclusion of all students based on their needs, not just a formal disability label. This moves away from what the article calls an “exclusionary” system.
5. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.
   • Explanation: The article criticizes the current system for favoring “IDEA compliance over accountability for student outcomes such as graduation rates and achievement gaps between students with and without disabilities.” This points to an inequality of outcome that the proposed reforms seek to address by focusing on a system that ensures all students can succeed.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Proportion of students qualifying for special education services: The article provides specific data points, stating that the portion of public school students qualifying for IDEA services “was 9%” in 1976 and rose to “about 15%” in 2023. This metric can be used as an indicator to track changes in identification rates under a reformed system.
• Special education identification rates by disability category and state: The article mentions that the increase in qualifying students is “driven by those diagnosed with learning disabilities, autism, and other health impairments.” It also refers to an interactive dashboard showing rates by state, citing that in California, the portion of K-12 students with autism grew from “0.2%” in 2000 to “2.5%” in 2023. These disaggregated data points serve as specific indicators.
• Student outcome metrics: The article implies that progress should be measured by student outcomes. It explicitly mentions “graduation rates and achievement gaps between students with and without disabilities” as key areas where the current system lacks accountability. These are crucial indicators for measuring the reduction of inequalities of outcome (Target 10.3).
• Structure of teacher preparation programs: The article implies an indicator for teacher quality (Target 4.c) by contrasting the current model of “separate pathways for special and general education” with a proposed integrated model. The proportion of teacher training programs that adopt an integrated approach to teaching students with diverse needs could be a measurable indicator of progress.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: k12dive.com