[S]tudents with learning disabilities are not receiving an equitable education, according to a UVM professor who testified in the House Education Committee Thursday.
Dr. Michael Giangreco told lawmakers that too many Vermont students with special needs are receiving their instruction from paraprofessionals instead of certified teachers.
“There’s a very high level of variability across the state in terms of the access of students with disabilities being in regular classes,” said Giangreco.
He focused his testimony along what he called lines of persistent concerns associated with Vermont special education, including funding, equitable access to educational supports, and services from highly qualified personnel.
The present funding system encourages “gamesmanship” between schools and the state, with schools trying to get the most from their reimbursements, while the state tries to keep the costs down.
Giangreco said the over-use of paraprofessionals for students with disabilities coupled with too little time in regular classroom environments, is part of a larger root problem.
“There is no single action, or quick-fix response, that will substantially solve the existing problems,” Giangreco testified.
According to recent Vermont Agency of Education data, in some supervisory unions and districts, regular class placements of students with disabilities is as low as 48 percent, ranging to over 90 percent.
“If you have a child with disabilities, whether they have the option to be included in regular class should not depend on where you live in Vermont,” Giangreco said. “You shouldn’t have to move to get your kid access to a regular class.”
Sometimes, special education students who spend most of a day in general education classrooms might experience “micro-exclusion,” Giangreco said. Even though they are in the same classroom with other students, they are isolated at the back doing separate work.
That situation is referred to as “the island in the mainstream.”
Giangreco several times emphasized that his testimony was not meant to be disrespectful of the dedication many paraprofessionals bring to their work with children in the state’s schools, but, he said, “they are not teachers.” As a result, special education students are denied the right to an education from highly qualified teachers.
“I would suggest to you that not only is that not good for the student, but it is an equity issue,” Giangreco said.
The assignment of a paraprofessional to a student may have begun as a “benevolent intention,” but, he asserted, it is a “discriminatory practice.”
“If you said…‘We’re going to hire a whole bunch of paraprofessionals who have passed a criminal background check and have a high school diploma and they’re going to provide 40, 50, 60 percent of the instruction to kids who don’t have disabilities,’ people would not tolerate that approach to education, said Giangreco.
Vermont as a state has one of the highest use of paraprofessionals in the country, Giangreco said. Kansas and New Hampshire in the past year surpassed Vermont.
But there are many unintended consequences of having a paraprofessional with special education students much of the time. Increased isolation or risk of being bullied are two negative outcomes of one-on-one student aides.
Giangreco cautioned that the problem will not be solved simply by reducing the number of paraprofessionals, but will require putting in place more alternatives. He encouraged using a hybrid model for funding that is mainly block grants, instead of a reimbursement model.
Not long ago students who had a disability, such as Down syndrome, were thought to be incapable of being educated.
“These kids were always in special class, or in a special school, people didn’t think they could learn how to read other than sight words,” Giangreco said.
Today, he said, “What these kids are capable of learning in a regular classroom is astounding…Today, they are functioning way up here,” he said holding his hand high.
Editor’s note: This story was updated at 12:27 p.m. Jan. 31.