American parents are famously content with their own children's schools even while deploring the state of schools in general. Many have speculated on why this is so. The likeliest explanation, I believe, is that parents have an emotional need to believe that they're providing well for their kids and have made suitable educational arrangements for them. I surmise that we'd see a similar pattern if parents were surveyed as to children's nutrition, health, physical fitness or character development: my kid is doing pretty well, though kids in general are in dismal shape.
Such seeming satisfaction may be just a veneer, however, a thin layer under which lies a deeper discontent. The estimable research organization, Public Agenda, has on several occasions pushed parents harder to appraise their children's schools and educational experiences by asking, for example, whether they would be inclined to move their daughters and sons from public to private schools if they could afford to do so. Many would.
This week, Public Agenda released an interesting report indicating that a kindred pattern may obtain among the parents of children with disabilities. (The report, "When It's Your Own Child," is based on research that was supported in part by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and can be found in full on the web at http://www.publicagenda.com/specials/specialed/specialed.htm.)
This study draws upon a carefully structured survey of more than 500 parents of special-needs children, the first such that, to our knowledge, has ever been conducted. It contains much data that point in various directions, at least from a policy perspective.
Partisans of current special-ed laws and programs will gravitate toward the findings that two-thirds of these parents give good marks to their children's current school for providing needed help, that large majorities are pleased with their children's teachers and special-ed teams, and that, from the parental perspective, much of what ails the program could be cured with "more of the same" (more information, more services, etc.).
Policy reformers will dwell on a different set of survey results: the one-third of special-ed parents who rate their child's current school as "fair" or "poor" in providing necessary help; the 45% who don't think the special-ed program is preparing their kids for the real world; the two-thirds who believe that many youngsters could have avoided special-ed if they'd gotten extra help at an early age; and the many who say they must struggle hard to get their kids the services they need.
The Public Agenda study, in short, doesn't lend itself to a sound-byte summary. It suggests that this terrain is indeed hilly and valid generalizations are few. It may also suggest that these parents, perhaps more urgently than others, need to believe that they're doing right by their special-needs sons and daughters, even as they recognize that the programs aren't what they should be. Perhaps the very intensity of their struggle to obtain services for their children-all the time and energy they devote to the process-makes them likelier to think well of the teachers and schools they have mustered on their youngsters' behalf, while also illustrating for them some shortcomings of the special-ed program as a whole.
As policy makers in Washington and elsewhere ponder these data in connection with the upcoming reauthorization of the federal IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) program, and in combination with the forthcoming report of the President's Commission on Special Ed (expected early next month-and perhaps to include a controversial voucher-type proposal), four lessons seem especially important.
First, there's a limit to how much programmatic uniformity can be imposed from Washington, no matter how finely tuned the policy machinery. At the end of the day, the implementation and service-delivery burdens are borne by hundreds of thousands of educators in tens of thousands of schools, and these are as varied (in competence, resources, responsiveness, etc.) as are the millions of youngsters who qualify for special-ed services. Only 29% of special-ed parents are even aware that Uncle Sam plays a large role in shaping special-ed policies and programs.
Second, despite their ground-level and (legitimately) self-interested perspective on the policy process, most special-ed parents know that pouring more money into the current program is not the way to make it work better. Asked to choose between "better programs and policies" and "more funding," parents come down (52-42) on the side of policy reform.
Third, the one reform that draws their nearly universal support is for schools to pay greater attention to the academic progress of disabled youngsters. In other words, there's a large constituency for tugging IDEA in the direction of "No Child Left Behind." Only 15% of special-ed parents would exempt their children from a state's academic standards and high-stakes tests (though half favor "special accommodations" in the testing environment).
Fourth, while the perspective of current special-ed parents is important for policy makers to understand, it's not the only factor that they must weigh. As Public Agenda says, they also need to consider "the interests of...parents of children who don't need these particular services but who do need good schools and good teachers...[and] the interests of Americans who do not have children in school, but who need adequate health care, safe neighborhoods, a clean environment and security in an increasingly dangerous world." Such trade-offs can be painful but they must be faced.
The IDEA reauthorization could turn out to be an uncommonly sticky endeavor. There's no tsunami of dissatisfaction among the parents of youngsters who now get special-ed services, though the data reveal definite rumblings of changes they'd like to see made. At the same time, this policy arena is full of people and interest groups wedded to a simplistic "send money" strategy that opposes all changes other than the kind that would boost federal special-ed appropriations. Then there are the ardent reformers who believe that the current program needs fundamental rethinking if it's to move from "services" to "results."
Stay tuned. Meanwhile, have a look at "When It's Your Own Child" and see whether you find yourself both informed and perplexed. Our hats are off to Public Agenda for plowing important new ground. Now we must see what can grow there.
* * *
On July 10, the Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute will host a presentation and discussion of the findings of "When It's Your Own Child," featuring senior representatives from Public Agenda, which conducted and analyzed that survey. The briefing will be from 1:30 until 3:30 at the Reserve Officers Association, Minuteman Memorial Building, 1 Constitution Avenue, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002. Space is limited; if you would like to attend, please contact [email protected] or call 202-547-0001.
