School staff shortages worsen conditions for disabled students.
Schools are continuing to recover from staff shortages that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and stagnant wages. Despite the recommended ratio of 250 students per counselor, California school counselors report caring for an average of 527 students, according to the American School Counseling Association.[23] There is a significant shortage of qualified teacher aides, which many students with disabilities rely on to access a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) guaranteed in the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Without sufficient classroom aide staffing teachers are stretched thin, students lack the support they require, and districts must attempt to fill the gaps with contract agencies which sometimes provide aides with little training.[24] In addition, California is experiencing a teacher shortage, with more than 10,000 teacher vacancies in the 2021-2022 school year. The shortage is particularly concentrated in rural communities, low-income communities, and communities of color. Further, there is a severe shortage of credentialed teachers for Deaf students and for blind and low-vision students.
The Governor’s 2024 Budget does not provide much hope, as the lack of substantive increased support for educators results in little incentive for special education teachers and providers to remain in or enter the field. For children and youth with disabilities to be adequately served, work remains to retain and recruit staff who can assist them and ensure all the services agreed to in Individual Education Plans (IEP) are delivered to the students who require support.[25]
Law enforcement involvement endangers disabled students.
While the State of California leads in preventing suspensions of students for willful defiance, students with disabilities continue to face punitive measures for behavior, often involving law enforcement. Ideally, school staff would be able to address the specific issue a student faces and prevent law enforcement interaction.
Students with disabilities are disproportionately impacted by the school-to-prison pipeline. According to the 2024 Racial and Identify Profiling Act Report, officers are more likely to search, detain, and handcuff students with disabilities. For example, officers handcuffed students with disabilities 41% of the time they were stopped, compared to 15% of students without disabilities. Additionally, the California Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) estimates that 25% to 30% of DJJ youths have been identified as requiring special education services.[26] California must ensure that teacher shortages and antiquated laws do not translate to increased harmful law enforcement interactions for California’s youth.
California participates in the “Troubled Teen Industry.”
The “Troubled Teen Industry” (TTI) is a term for the different facilities for “troubled youth” and is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States. One of the states with the largest TTI is Utah, which houses close to one hundred youth treatment centers that together gross nearly five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) per year.[27] In 2020, California youth were sent to eight different facilities in Utah. In 2022, after a state law was passed prohibiting out-of-state placement of systems-involved youth (from foster care and juvenile justice systems), California youth were still sent to a total of three facilities, two of which were in Utah.[28] The exact number of youth sent to Utah and other states’ facilities is unclear, as the California Department of Social Services masked values of ten or less when providing out-of-state placement information through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. In any event, these totals do not include youth sent via the education system or those privately placed by caregivers.
Additionally, following the prohibition on out-of-state placements for systems-involved youth, Disability Rights California (DRC) has received concerning reports of county foster care agencies collaborating with school districts to funnel foster youth to these facilities through the IEP process. We are gravely concerned that vulnerable youth are being moved to facilities without accountability rather than being accommodated by the school system.
Inclusive education is still not the norm in California schools.
In California, there is a legal presumption in favor of educating students with disabilities along with students without disabilities. Students must be educated with other non-disabled students unless the nature and “severity” of the disability is such that education in a regular classroom cannot be achieved reasonably.[29] Despite aggressive statewide targets adopted by the State Board of Education in 2021 for increasing the time students with disabilities in preschool-12th grade spend in the general education curriculum, California has only made small gains toward its goal of greater inclusivity and belonging. By next year, hundreds of local educational agencies (LEAs) will not have met the statewide goal of 70% of students with disabilities spending 80% or more of their time in general education. Research has shown that the level of inclusion a child experiences beginning in preschool is a strong predictor of whether they will be included in general education in later grades.[30]
The enacted 2024-2025 budget reflects a decision to roll back the inclusion of disabled children in the state preschool program to a mere 5% of the student population. Similar programs, including the federal Head Start program, dedicate at least 10% enrollment to disabled students. The state needs to provide opportunities for our youngest children with and without disabilities to be educated in inclusive settings with robust support and services to ensure the stage is set for inclusion and belonging in our schools and communities from the beginning of a child and family’s journey. Ensuring there is appropriate funding designated to support students with extensive support needs in more inclusive settings would also signal the state’s commitment to inclusion.
Language and Communication Access needs to be the heart of Deaf Education.
Language and communication are central to Deaf children’s cognitive, emotional, and social development. Early language exposure is critical for Deaf infants and toddlers to acquire language and a solid foundation that will lead to the development of literacy skills. To monitor and ensure language development, ongoing assessments that track the Deaf child’s language developmental milestones are needed in early intervention. Whether Deaf students are using American Sign Language (ASL), spoken English, or both languages, determining how to provide Deaf students with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is nuanced and complex. As stated by the National Association for the Deaf (NAD), the Least Restrictive Environment for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children should have the fewest language and communication barriers to their educational development.[31] However, the LRE has historically and continues to be misapplied to justify placing Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in general education without support or access to language and communication. These risks and challenges are inherent in the full inclusion movement. It is necessary to have credentialed teachers of the Deaf and knowledgeable administrators to ensure Deaf students have appropriate support and access to language and communication. For these reasons, Deaf advocates must be at the table when discussions about disability education and Deaf education are occurring. Inclusion is complex — ultimately, decisions should center the preferences and learning needs of the person with the disability. For example, some students in the blindness community may benefit from or prefer a specialized educational setting. Teachers and other educational professionals who have specialized training and certifications are necessary for appropriate instruction of pupils who are blind or have low vision. For a variety of reasons, including teacher shortages, especially in rural districts, the local school district may not be the least restrictive or most appropriate setting in which children who are blind or have low vision can make educational progress.
[28] California Family Permanency and Support Services Branch, Out of State Placements January 1, 2019-December 31, 2022, California Department of Social Services (data forwarded by Abby Mann with Unsilenced).
[29] Regan-Adkins v. San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 37 Fed. Appx. 930 (9th Cir. 2002)
[31] “Position Statement on Inclusion.“ National Association of the Deaf.