"I am not ashamed of that. I tell everyone. It’s part of who I am," he said. Of course, I told him what I do for a living and the conversation proceeded from there. He said his parents first learned he had a learning disability at age 4 after recognizing his significant problems with speech and language. He said he received special education support throughout school and was given various accommodations during college. The determination of this young man to defy the low expectations that so often plague students with disabilities was evident in a letter he subsequently sent me seeking advice as he contemplates employment and graduate school. "I say this as one who was told to take five or six years to complete high school and then maybe I could go to a two-year program. I said, ‘No way. I’m graduating with my class and going on to college."

This young man’s successful educational experience is shared by more and more students served under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act as the number of students with disabilities going on to higher education has tripled since 1990. However, though we have made great progress, the experience of this young man is not shared by all students with disabilities. Too many drop out of school at close to double the rate of their nondisabled counterparts or they leave school without the skills and knowledge they need to be successful.

Increasingly, we know from research and the experience of implementing IDEA, what we need to do to improve educational results for students with disabilities. I would like to share five strategies, which the research indicates are important to improve educational outcomes for these students.

No. 1: Ensure all infants and toddlers with disabilities receive appropriate interventions.

Increasingly educators know the importance of early intervention and how the early years can affect the success of children in school. This is particularly true for students with disabilities. The first years of life are critical to intellectual, language, sensory and motor development.

IDEA, Part C, funds early intervention programs in all the states. Though not typically run by local school districts, public schools have a great stake in the effectiveness of these programs. For instance, deaf children need to start school with vocabularies commensurate with their hearing peers if they are going to achieve decent levels of literacy. However, we know from research that most do not and the reading levels of most deaf students are very low.

We also know that the optimal time for language development is in the first years of life. Deaf children typically don’t develop language well in the early years because they have no way to access communication from their parents. Studies show that deaf children born of deaf parents, a minority of deaf children, have significantly higher levels of vocabulary because they typically have a system of communication with their parents--sign language--through which they can develop language skills.

This is why early intervention is so important for these children and their families. As early as possible, a communication system between the child and the parent must be established and intensive work should be done to develop vocabulary. The same principle applies to other children with disabilities. Early speech therapy can correct problems that will be more costly to correct later and the optimal time for certain physical and occupational therapies are during the early years when development is most rapid.

School district administrators should take a deep interest in the early intervention programs in their community. Well-functioning early intervention programs will result in students ready to learn when they reach school and can decrease the level of need for special education and related services later. Each state and many local communities have interagency advisory councils, which oversee this program. This is an excellent vehicle by which school districts can become involved.

Early Recognition
No. 2: Ensure preschool programs prepare students to be successful during the primary grades.

Over the past 10 years the number of preschool children served under IDEA has doubled. Approximately 40 percent of students served by special education are identified before they enter school. Given the increased recognition of the importance of early intervention for students at risk of failure in school, this is a positive trend.

However, simply providing these students with programs is not enough. Programs must be of high quality and prepare these youngsters to be successful in school. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education sponsored an important research synthesis conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. The study, "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children," showed clearly that many of the difficulties students encounter in learning to read can be prevented or significantly ameliorated through high-quality, early intervention programs.

Basic phonemic awareness--understanding that simple words are composed of sound segments--or the ability to rhyme are skills frequently lacking in children at risk of reading failures, including youngsters with disabilities. These skills can be taught before children enter school. Further, many children need vocabulary and language enhancement. Other children need to develop social and behavioral skills, which will enable them to start school successfully. Quality preschool programs require well-trained staff to prepare students to learn in the inclusive environments in which more and more disabled students are educated today.

No. 3: Intervene early with children experiencing significant behavior and reading difficulties in the primary grades.

More than 50 percent of students served by special education are not identified until they are in school. The primary reasons these students are referred are due to behavorial problems or problems related to learning to read. Typically these students do not get referred to special education until 3^rd or 4^th grade or even later. Some children referred at this time do not have disabilities, but have been poorly taught. Those who have disabilities frequently have had very negative experiences in the primary grades and have lost important time.

General education and special education need to work closely together to ensure that all children experiencing significant problems with learning to read or behaving in school receive effective interventions in kindergarten, 1^st and 2^nd grade to turn these problems around.

One researcher interviewed the kindergarten teachers of students who were later identified as emotionally disturbed. In virtually every case the kindergarten teacher had been deeply concerned with the child’s behavior. These children weren’t typical kindergartners in the eyes of their former teachers. They were quite atypical.

Unfortunately, most students with emotional disturbance do not receive special education services until they are in the 5^th grade or later. And when they do receive special education, the programs they receive are ineffective. A study conducted by the Office of Federal Special Education Programs documented that less than 20 percent of this population had behavior addressed on their individual education plans and close to 50 percent of these students drop out before graduation. When children are exhibiting atypical behavior in kindergarten or 1^st grade, they should be given help then, not later.

Kids with significant behavior problems don’t typically grow out of their problems. These problems are more apt to increase if left unaddressed. The sooner we start with providing these children with positive behavioral interventions, the greater the likelihood we will be able to change these children’s behavior.

The same urgency that applies to students experiencing significant behavior problems also applies to those experiencing significant difficulty with learning to read. Rather significant numbers of students experience this difficulty. Large-scale studies by the National Institutes of Health estimate that upwards of 20 percent of young children experience significant difficulty learning to read. There are various reasons for this. Some have been poorly taught. Others start school without a firm language foundation. Some have learning disabilities.

Whatever the cause, reading difficulties in the primary grades are highly predictive of poor overall school results. These children need more intensive support sooner rather than later. For students with learning disabilities, more explicit instruction in phonemic awareness may be needed. Many of these students may always need more help in reading, writing and spelling activities.

Unfortunately, students with learning disabilities do not typically receive services from special education until 3^rd grade or later, often after the student has experienced significant school failure. Indeed, the current way most states define learning disabilities follows a federal definition that requires the student demonstrate a significant discrepancy between the child’s intelligence and their performance in school. This assumes failure.

This definition is currently under review by the U.S. Department of Education. The IDEA, as amended in 1997, allows for more flexible definition of "developmental delay," which states and local school districts can use. Definitions aside, the sooner we start giving these students the help they need the more successful they will be and the likelihood of expensive out-of-district placements will decrease.

President Clinton, in his FY 2000 budget, has proposed a $50 million program to provide local districts with grants to promote earlier intervention for students with significant reading and behavior problems. If funded by Congress, this program will enable innovative school districts to intervene when it is obvious that young students need help at a time when such interventions are more likely to be effective.

Access to Coursework
No. 4: Provide students with meaningful access to the general curriculum.

In all of our efforts to improve educational results for students with disabilities we must begin with the assumption that students graduate from our schools with the skills and knowledge they will need to lead full productive lives. Therefore, students with disabilities need to be learning the same content in school as their nondisabled peers.

Unfortunately, many students with disabilities have been placed in special education classrooms that have not been teaching the same content provided in regular classrooms. Many students with disabilities at the secondary level have been discouraged from taking challenging academic classes. Until recently, most students with disabilities were not included in district- or state-level testing and accountability systems.

The result has been that students with disabilities often leave school without the skills and knowledge they need to compete and thus too many are underemployed or unemployed with limited access to higher education.

The IDEA, as reauthorized by the Congress in 1997, sought to change this situation with specific requirements that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and that they be included in local and state assessment programs. States also must establish performance goals for their special education programs that, at minimum, address how well students with disabilities are progressing in the curriculum.

What does access to the curriculum mean? Basically, that educational planning for students with disabilities needs to have as its foundation the curriculum being taught within the district and that curriculum be presented at a level and in a manner in which students with disabilities can acquire the content.

Clearly many students with disabilities will need accommodations and supports in order to access subject matter. For instance, a high school student with learning disabilities who does not read at grade level may need the text modified to his reading level in a physics course. The important point is that this student’s disability should not preclude this student from access to physics or any other subject.

In order for students with disabilities to gain access to the curriculum, special educators and general educators need to work closely together. They must plan in advance the accommodations and modifications the student will need as well as the support the teachers and student should expect. The IEP should reflect these understandings with active participation of the parents and the student, as appropriate. The amended IDEA includes these important concepts and also allows for the more flexible use of federal special education funds to encourage collaborative approaches between special education and general education.

A critical aspect of ensuring access to the curriculum is the need to assess how well students are acquiring the skills and content being taught. Unfortunately, few special education programs have been managed based on results data. Special education often has been more focused on process oversight. This was probably necessary in the early years of P.L. 94-142 implementation as we were putting systems in place to educate students with disabilities. However, we need now to make sure these programs are working for students and when they are not to adjust our approaches accordingly.

Staying in School
No. 5: All students with disabilities must complete high school.

High school is a make-or-break time for students with disabilities, and for too many students with disabilities it is a break time. Students with disabilities leave school prematurely at almost twice the rate of their nondisabled peers. This is particularly true of students with learning disabilities and those with emotional disturbances.

The consequences of dropping out of school are more significant for students with disabilities because few ever will return to school and many will experience unemployment, early unwed maternity and problems with the law. Meanwhile, students with disabilities who stay in school and have the benefit of effective instruction are moving on to higher education and employment at increasing levels.

Several characteristics of programs have been identified through research as improving the likelihood that students with disabilities will stay in school and achieve better results once leaving school:

• access to vocational education,
• availability of counseling services,
• inclusion in general education programs and
• minimizing student transfers from program to program.

Students with disabilities who have had access to good vocational programs are more apt to stay in school and enjoy higher incomes once they leave. This is not to say that all students with disabilities should be in vocational courses, but, for many, these programs have shown to be effective.

Students with disabilities often encounter difficulties negotiating the high school environment. If they have a person, such as a guidance counselor, to go to help them solve these problems and, at times, advocate for them, they are more apt to stay in school.

Integrating students with disabilities into general education programs leads to improved educational outcomes only if students receive the accommodations, modifications and supports they need.

Research also shows that the chances of students with disabilities dropping out of school increases when they are transferred from one special program to another. This is apt to occur when they encounter difficulties. Though school personnel usually make these transfers with the best intentions in an attempt to find a program that works, these actions tend to diminish the likelihood of successful completion of school. A better approach in many of these situations would be to modify the program the student is currently in to better meet his or her needs.

The need to improve high school options for students with disabilities is reflected in a new requirement in the reauthorized IDEA: Transition planning for each student must begin no later than age 14. In fulfilling this requirement, educators ought to consider the course of study the student will be pursuing in high school. Given the risks these students face, good planning at this stage is crucial.

As part of the planning process and as students proceed through high school, involving them increasingly in taking responsibility for themselves and empowering them, when appropriate, to make critical decisions has been shown to contribute to successful outcomes. Some schools even have experimented with student-led IEP meetings for older students.

Every strategy and approach presented here requires us to move away from a traditional notion of special education as separate and distant from the general education program. Rather, we need to recognize that special education and general education must work together to improve student results.

Many of these effective practices can serve other students as well. When special education and general education work together, the education of all children improves. The wisdom of a great American, Helen Keller, is appropriate here: "Alone we can do so little, together we do so much!"

Thomas Hehir is a lecturer in the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. He also is a distinguished scholar at the Educational Development Center in Newton, Mass., and served until July as director of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education.

Tom Hehir recommends educators seeking more information about special education visit the Web site maintained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/).

The Web site provides links to the various research studies mentioned in his article.

The site includes the final regulations for IDEA ’97 Amendments and a searchable database of more than 1,200 projects funded by the department’s Research to Practice Division.

Also available are downloadable versions of the latest state monitoring reports.