The Supreme Court’s recent ruling put school districts on notice that if it failed to reasonably address the special needs of students, parents could opt to have those needs met at a  private institution all at the school district’s expense.  While this has the potential of placing a huge financial burden upon school districts, it doesn’t have to if school districts offer special education services to those students who qualify for them.  Such is not always the case.

Educators will tell you that there has been a push by local school districts to significantly reduce the number of students qualifying for special education services.  Special education classes were seen as a dumping ground for many students who had classroom management issues, with a higher than expected proportion being minorities.   It is also true that special education programs are not fully funded by the federal government and frequently supplant funds from regular education programs.  That is not fair.  However, it is equally unfair for a school district to balance its books by depriving students of special education services.  That has the potential to happen through the implementation of another federal program — Response to Intervention (RtI).

The intent of RtI is educationally noteworthy. It is a means to accurately measure a student’s academic needs and to determine appropriate interventions.  Thus, RtI could provide assistance to those students not eligible for special education, but in need of additional regular education resources.  However, RtI could also be misused by some school districts by delaying special education referrals or by retaining students with unidentified special needs within less expensive regular education programs.   

Both regular and special education teachers are already seeing their workload increase because of RtI assignments, some possibly violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  While special education teachers often work with their students within regular education classrooms, thereby having “incidental” contact with regular education students, school districts are now having RtI students pulled out of their regular education classes and co-mingled with special education students who are receiving special education services at the time.  Not only does this deprive special education students of instructional minutes per their Individualized Education Plan, but it also denies them due process rights related to their privacy.  Special education advocates are surely paying attention.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, it would be prudent if school districts did not misuse RtI or use it as a rationale to either deny or delay special education services to students.  All it takes are informed parents to decide that such tactics are not in the best interest of their child and that perhaps their child would be better served within a private classroom environment  — at the district’s expense, of course.

Ric Stephenson

Region 6 Director, Illinois Education Association-NEA

Edwardsville