Special needs students deserve a quality education
By Walt Gardner
.jpg?w=728)
The government’s decision to open at least 22 additional special needs schools by 2022 is hailed as evidence that education is a right for these students, rather than a benefit. But the issue is more complicated than it initially appears.
At least that has been the experience in the United States, where the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) that was first passed in 1975 and subsequently revised in 1997 and 2004 mandated their right to “free appropriate public education” in the “least restrictive environment.” But schools, parents and courts have been divided over what this promise means in practice.
Until recently, the standard was an education that was only “more than de minimis.” In other words, as long as schools provided a modest benefit to special needs students, they were compliant. When the parents of an autistic boy enrolled in a public school in Colorado complained that their son was being shortchanged, they enrolled him in a private school and sought reimbursement for the $70,000 tuition. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court to reconsider applying a higher standard.
Korea runs the risk of confronting a similar legal charge down the line when it opens more special needs schools. Good intentions are not enough in a court of law. Schools will be required at some point to demonstrate that the curriculum and services at these schools are first-class. Moreover, the potential financial burdens on these schools will unavoidably mean that the general student population will be impacted. The U.S. has seen special education’s share of school budgets jump sharply.
Adding 1,250 more special needs classes at regular schools will mean making them fully accessible. The existence of a law is no assurance. For example, until recently, 83 percent of New York City’s public elementary schools were not in compliance with IDEA. These included elevators that were not the proper width, improper door knobs, bathroom grab bars, drinking fountains and faucets. When budgets are tight, parents whose children do not qualify for special education services often resent funds being diverted from their classes.
The “de minimis” standard in reality meant that schools could take the money, do little, and get away with it. If Korea is genuinely committed to the welfare of special needs students, it could find itself having to decide what it will do about parents whose children are denied the programs they have been promised. Will it pay for tuition at private schools that are better able than public schools to provide the necessary services? That will be the real test.
That’s why the National Disability Rights Network in the U.S. has fought for a clearer standard. It’s time for a similar organization in Korea to support the movement. Although there are cultural differences regarding education in Korea and the U.S., special needs children deserve a champion for their cause.
Walt Gardner writes the Reality Check blog for Education Week in the U.S.