Handicapping Students with Special Needs

In order to help students with special needs (learning disabilities, emotional disturbances, etc.) be successful academically, many of these students are given an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that constructs goals and methods to help that child succeed. One common accommodation is the use of small group testing: students with this accommodation go to the library with the special educator to take the same test as their classmates. The distinction is these students can have directions and/or test questions read aloud to them, or they may even receive additional time if needed.

The concept of an IEP is a sound one: it levels the proverbial playing field and gives students with special needs a greater opportunity to do well. The system fails, however, when we do not allow these students to release their crutch and stand on their own two legs.

There is a special educator at our school who is committed to ensuring students get good grades on their English 12 exams. This is all well and good until it is apparent that it is not the students who are taking these exams.

Based on my experiences with this special educator over the last three years, it seems that if he does not outright tell the students the answers, he leads them there blatantly. Even the students' perception of him tells me my hypothesis is correct. The general education students have also learned that Mr. Brooks will give them answers, and therefore will not have to think for themselves.

Today my English 12 class had a grammar exam. Shortly after our warm-up exercise, I began distributing the test. One of my special education students became worried when he did not see Mr. Brooks in the room yet and asked if he could go to the library by himself (!) and wait for Mr. Brooks there. (Obviously not.) I apologized and encouraged the student to try his best on the exam.

After a few minutes, the same student asked if I could tell him a grammar rule that would clearly lead him to several answers on the test. He had the tone of a student who is accustomed to receiving such aid. I shook my head and apologized again—I could no longer answer such a question once the exam was distributed.

As I finished saying this, Mr. Brooks entered the classroom, and the special education students quickly collected their exam papers and writing utensils and scurried out of the room.

I do find it a strange coincidence that the student with special needs who could not remember a basic grammatical rule somehow had the highest score on the test.

I do believe that Mr. Brooks has the best of intentions: help these students do well on the test so they can graduate, boost their self-esteems, etc. It is clear, however, that he is not doing these students any favors; they have been conditioned to use the special educator—and their IEPs—as a crutch, and therefore have limited their own academic growth. Although Mr. Brooks is clearly at fault here, he is not the only one responsible: these seniors did not learn to behave this way since August; they have been learning this since the first time they had been branded special ed.

The purpose, once again, of an IEP is to give students with special needs a chance to succeed in the same academic setting as the general education students and to receive the same high school diploma. If we do not provide the same quality of education for these special education students, then we should not give them the same diploma or send them into the same work force. We owe it to these students to hold them to the same standards as the general ed students, yet use their accommodations to scaffold their education—the way the IEP was intended.