This issue of NASET’s Practical Teacher was written by Marissa Desiree Pardo. The purpose of this article is to observe and discuss the effectiveness of Category C, or the most restrictive placement for students with disabilities (SWD), including residential facilities, separate schools, and hospital/homebound setting. In the study, it was apparent that every state varied in placement patterns. States also did not set high expectations or rigorous goals to reduce the number of students in Category C placements. Over the last 8, years the amount of increases or decreases in Category C placements has remained the same. The article takes four research questions into consideration. What extent do states vary in providing more restrictive settings at baseline? What targets were implemented by states to decrease the number of students in separate facilities, separate school, or hospital/homebound settings (Category C placements) between 2004 to 2012? Do state target goals predict placement rates for Category C students? What types of disabilities are more often funneled into the most restrictive settings? The most crucial finding is that students with low-incidence or severe disabilities are heavily placed in these settings.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to observe and discuss the effectiveness of Category C, or the most restrictive placement for students with disabilities (SWD), including residential facilities, separate schools, and hospital/homebound setting. In the study, it was apparent that every state varied in placement patterns. States also did not set high expectations or rigorous goals to reduce the number of students in Category C placements. Over the last 8, years the amount of increases or decreases in Category C placements has remained the same. The most crucial finding is that students with low-incidence or severe disabilities are heavily placed in these settings.
Keywords: Inclusion Education, High-incidence disabilities, low-incidence disabilities
Comparing and Contrasting Research- to- Teaching Practices:
A Critical Analysis of Highly Restrictive Special Education Placements for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities
Historically, prior to the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, SWD were not typically provided with education services that were adequate, appropriate, or suitable for their needs. Many SWD were either placed in a separate classroom, a separate school setting, or even institutionalized as a result of the disabilities they had. This treatment of SWD stemmed from the common misconception that they were unable to learn in a typical classroom setting.
Over recent years, more students with high-incidence or mild disabilities, such as students with autism, emotional behavior disorders, and intellectual disabilities, were placed in typical classroom settings and were given supports to be able to access the general education curriculum. Spending the majority of the entire day in a general education setting is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and has been proven to show positive results for SWD. Unfortunately, students with low-incidence disabilities are not a part of this trend. If a SWD requires significant supports or has been diagnosed with severe or multiple disabilities, they are generally placed in separate class settings or in separate institutions. The rate at which students with low-incidence disabilities are being placed in typical settings is far less frequent in comparison to students with high-incidence disabilities.
Despite low-incidence SWD being placed in separate class settings to receive more individualized instruction, there is little research or evidence indicating that this method is successful to improve educational outcomes. In fact, when SWD are involved in inclusive or general education settings, they show higher rates of academic improvement and make gains in communication and employment skills, due to the increase in socialization and learning expectations.
The article takes four research questions into consideration. What extent do states vary in providing more restrictive settings at baseline? What targets were implemented by states to decrease the number of students in separate facilities, separate school, or hospital/homebound settings (Category C placements) between 2004 to 2012? Do state target goals predict placement rates for Category C students? What types of disabilities are more often funneled into the most restrictive settings?
Methods
In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act, which included the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 years later. In subpart F. in indicator 5 of IDEA, there are statistical measures of how SWD participate in the general education setting and how each student between the ages of 6-21 are served in the school setting within 3 categories. Category A includes students that are in a regular classroom setting for at least 80% or more of the school day. Category B includes students that are in the general education setting for less than 40% of the school day. Category C includes students that are served in separate school settings, residential facilities, or hospital/ homebound placements. The article focuses on Category C students because there is little research about the category and this population is often omitted from educational discourse.
In 2005, states each established their own state performance plans (SPP) to collect initial baseline data on the performance of each student to compare to annual performance reports (APR). This data shapes how each state targets the percentage of improvement they want to see for the future. The article also uses absolute percentage changes to report progress.
In this study, 13 IDEA exceptionalities will be addressed including autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, developmental delay, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and blindness.
Limitations
Students who are in the process of a staffing to special education create an error of data because they are not included in this study after they are placed. Also, students with active Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) who were absent on days where local educational agencies report on the school’s indicator 5 data were also excluded, implying that the data does not reflect all of the students being served. Not all states use the same disability categories, meaning the label for a disability may not be under the same name depending on the state.
Students that may share a similar sounding label can have a different definition or criteria for that label depending on each state. Although national data is used, it can vary by meaning, label, and criteria, making it problematic when used in a comparison.
Results
For the study, existing data was used to identify state baselines, what each state targeted to improve education in restrictive setting, and what data over the span of 8 years indicates in terms of any progress made towards reducing the numbers of students served in the most restrictive environment. There are also reports of which disability categories are most frequently placed and served in the most restrictive setting
SPP baselines rates taken in 2004, stated that students served in Category C varied considerably between states, the highest percentage being in Washington D.C. placing 31% of SWD in Category C to the lowest percentage being 0.9% of SWD being placed in this category in Georgia. The mean baseline for the rate of placements in Category C across all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia was 3.66% of students receiving services from special education within this category.
When setting targets for improvement for 2012, the states increased the goal targets by small increments of reduction of students in the Category C setting. Through 2004 to 2012, states aimed to reduce the number of students in the most restrictive setting by less than 1 percentage point, or 0.83%. During this time, there was a 9.3% increase in students placed in Category A (in regular education, 80% or more of the time) and a 4% decrease in students in Category B (in regular education, less than 40% of the time). Only 12 states proposed a decrease in Category C students of between 1% and 6.88%. The remaining states proposed exceptionally low targets for decreasing these types of placements for SWD. 28 states indicated they expected to see between 0.17%- 0.92% of a decrease for SWD in the most restrictive environment. 6 states proposed a 0.02%-0.08% decrease. 2 states believed that there would be an increase in Category C placements by 0.11%-0.1%. 3 states proposed no target for increase or decrease in Category C placement. This reinforces the earlier comments in regards to educators lacking high expectations for SWD and the firmly misguided beliefs that these students cannot learn, especially when discussing students in Category C. The mean change in placement from Category C (M=3.22) from a baseline mean of 3.66 from 2004 to 2012 was an unreasonably small decrease. The decrease in restrictive placement was only by half a point (0.4) According to the data, rather than decrease the placement of students in Category C placement, there was a slippage in the data, meaning there was an increase of this placement change. 10 states or 19.6% of the SWD showed no change in placement and 21 states showed 41% increase. Category C placements were decreased by 0.01% across all states, but the target reduction was 0.82%. 98.4% of all students in Category C were served in separate school settings. Dual-sensory impairments, multiple disabilities, and emotional behavioral disorders were the students who were most likely to be served in this setting. This may be due to the severity of the cognitive and behavioral problems this population exhibits. Students with developmental delays, specific learning disabilities, and speech–language disorders are the least likely to be placed in a separate school setting. This is possible as a result of the plethora of interventions, research, and the young age of some of these students with these labels. Schools can more easily serve this population. 5.2% of all students in Category C are placed in residential settings. Students with sensory impairments, including vision and dual-sensory impairments, are the most likely to be served in these institutions and students with Developmental Delay and Specific Learning Disabilities were the least likely to be placed in this setting. This can also be due to the severity of the disabilities and a lack of research and resources to attend to this population. Hospital/Homebound settings have the smallest population of category C students (2.2%). This setting had a large number of students with multiple disabilities, whereas students with speech- language disorders were the least likely to be educated in this setting.
Discussion
It is clear that there is a pattern in regards to student placement in the most restrictive setting. It seems that schools had far more resources and supports for students with cognitive and behavioral disabilities, such as autism or ADHD (high incidence disabilities), however, students that had severe disabilities or multiple disabilities (low-incidence disabilities) were the most likely to be segregated from their peers. Although there has been some improvement in moving SWD between Category A or B, students with the most significant disabilities and needs remain stagnant in Category C. This means that thousands of SWD are being segregated from the typical school experience. This population is completely excluded from the general education curriculum, setting, and activities. At the end of this study, it was determined that 211,000 SWD were in Category C in the U.S., including about 169,000 students in separate schools, nearly 20,000 students in residential facilities, and 23,000 students in hospital/homebound settings. This is a large and often disproportionate number of SWD who have low-incidence disabilities being placed in the most restrictive settings with no clear reasoning as to why and no true attempts to decrease these numbers. This leads to students being terminally placed in these settings because interested stakeholders deem the setting appropriate despite growing research that claims that prolonged stagnancy in Category C is to the child’s detriment. The movement to increase specialized supports and services within the general education setting so that SWD can be included is being maintained in very few school districts, but not on a city or state-wide level. A shift to have students placed in Category A or B within a general education or inclusion setting, with the appropriate supports and services, is in the best interest of SWD, despite the alarming growing numbers of placements in Category C. The research has shown that the most restrictive setting is ineffective in increasing learning gains and must be changed to address a large number of students served.
Overall, the expectations the states have for SWD must change. The fact that each state believed that less than 1% of all of these students would be placed in a higher category within the span of 8 years shows that there is a firmly held belief that they cannot learn or succeed in school, even within a Category C setting. It must be noted that these students cannot attempt to reach a higher standard of learning within a setting completely devoid of access to natural and real-world situations.
References
Kurth, J. A., Morningstar, M. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227-239. Retrieved from ezproxy.fiu.edu/login
Download Information
To view or print this handout you have the following options:
View or Download PDF Version of this Issue CLICK HERE
