It is increasing, because there is new categories, that are not traditionally seen as special needs. Such as a student, with health needs. More on that later, but 21 reported for England, is around the figures for other developed countries in the world.

One of the comments, a mother brought up a valid point, rather than focusing on bad teaching, focused on the discrimination taking place vs the failure of the education system for special needs children and their education. Important, because the children who loose out, are the children with the needs of remediation and as well as corrective remediation in the 3 Rs. Nice to have accommodations, but it does little to remediate the core weaknesses of children. Accommodations are given first, because of the resources and staff to accommodate the needs of the new categories, who are given short intensive help, and as a result uses more resources. Complicating the manner, is that most children who are in need of remediation in the 3 Rs, do not qualify for the intensive targeted help, because they fall in the mild to moderate category.

Ontario has a big problem, where the majority are sitting in the inclusive classroom, and the only help is the teacher inside the classroom. Hence in Ontario, 2.8 % of the identified LD population will graduate and enter into post-secondary. A population that gets the short of the stick, in most of the provinces.

The only figures I can find for Ontario, since Ontario is not at all open and transparent concerning the stats of special needs students, and special education as a whole, is the 2006-2007 stats, and a report called Closing the Gap For Students With Special Education Needs.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/speced.pptSimilarThe PPT file

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/specEd_AERA_CSSE.pdf
The PDF file

In the PPT file, for the year 2006 - 2007

Students formally identified as exceptional by an IPRC = 198385

Students not formally identified as exceptional by an IPRC = 94583

In total 292968 SE students receiving SE services in some form.

Plus add approximately another 30000 students who are receiving services but not an IEP.

Total number is 322,968 students receiving special education services. In the categories that are new is the gifted group, which is 13 percent. That is quite the jump, compared to other provinces, and a valid point made by parents, is that the gifted is taking resources away from the other groups within SE.

So the figure of 400,000 today,  may not be all that off in the first place. if one compares the categories for SE in NL.
http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/publications/k12/stats/1011/g_SUP_10_6.pdf

For 2010 to 2011 in NL - A total of identified SE students of 10,815 or 16 %. This set of students are entitled to SE services, as well as accommodations, and all have IEPs. But like Ontario, I suspect there is a sub-population receiving pathway 2 accommodations, that are not identified. Further evidence of it, is the individual schools and the breakdown of the SE population. There have a new category, called NA (not applicable) where in the local high school, there is 20 students, More than likely a variety of students, not identified or have health needs that requires accommodations from time to time. No wonder the parents are suspicious of my youngest receiving alternate accommodations for mid-terms and final exams. But only about 5 % of the school population receives this type of accommodation.

To wrapped it up, NL could easily have 20 % in SE, if you include accommodations, of students who do not have a formal evaluation and an IEP. Given Ontario’s population, the 400,000 figure is not way out there,

Lastly,  note Ontario’s LD students proportion to NL’s LD students, under the SE grouping.

Ontario has 43.3 % and NL has 33.5 %. Ontario is doing a better job in identifying LD students. I suspect that there is another 10 % in NL flying under the radar or misdiagnosed.  The LD group should represent close to 50 % of the SE population.

The PPT file is a bad link. Hope this one works.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/speced.ppt

Doug Little contributes the following:

“In my time on the TBE (pre TDSB) the secondary system was 15% in special ed.
“Admin was concerned that this began to creep up to 16-17% which was deemed too expensive but also mislabelling.”

If one goes back in time, the number of students labeled SE, the percentage of students identified in the 1960s, was under the 6 % mark, and most of them could be find in the regular classroom. Increases in SE over time, has more to do with legal rights and the changing values of society over time. The changing values was the result of human rights legislation, increase knowledge from the education research taking place, as well as research in the health, medical and sociological fields, , and the laws governing the education of children.

Over time, segments of student populations were seen as having a special need, that directly related to their learning needs and achievement, that tied in with meeting the minimum legal requirements that must be met. What has been lost throughout the years, and in particular Canada, is the education of the SE children, to reach their full potential. Full potential in the eyes of any public education system, is to meet the minimum legal requirements, and not the learning needs of the SE students. I mentioned Canada, because the minimum requirement at the moment, is best efforts of the education authorities. Remediation of learning weaknesses is not on the radar, and it is here where equality, inclusive classrooms, accommodations, and so forth has become meeting the legal requirement, but not necessarily meeting the full potential of the SE students.

For example, the knowledge of sugar levels has a potential impact on children’s learning, and thus diabetics are included as having a special needs, and is legally entitled to SE services or at the very least to be compensated in the classroom, by using accommodations. As a result, the SE departments of any school district, their is a division between SE students, creating two types.
The first type, are the students needing educational services from SE and the second type needing non-education services. And where some students will need both at some point in their schooling.

As a result, there has been a natural increase in the number of student having special needs, to meet the minimum legal requirements, which in turn has increase the bottle necks in obtaining educational services in the SE departments. The focus has been on meeting the legal requirements, rather than meeting the education needs of the students.  Within SE, are the parents as well as society on a whole, inserting their rights especially on the non-education items, such as wheelchair access to a school, or the diabetic child to have the accommodation of being allowed drinks in the classroom, or the ADD student needing extra time with teacher. All things that can potentially impact learning, but are seen as meeting the legal requirements to prevent civil suits.

Doug is correct, and it has become very difficult to sort out the students who really should be in SE, and the students who should not be label SE, for non-educational items.

The above, is my opinion only but with experience and knowledge. I must expressed it is not as simple as I have stated, but a complicated system that has its priorities in the wrong places, and thus creating inequalities inside SE as well as outside of the SE departments.

Here are the stats that can be translate anywhere,whether we are Canadian or U.S. or from England-
http://www.reidlyon.com/edpolicy/2-THE-RIGHT-TO-READ-AND-THE-RESPONSIBILITY-TO-TEACH.pdf

Because of how we teach ,we get these numbers,if we wanted to improve the stats to a 5% number,we`d be teaching this way.
This is a half a billion dollar longitudinal study-Harvard,Yale,Haskins Labs ,Rutgers,Florida,etc…
The individual professor`s view still supercedes the conclusions of science.Why?
Why does the Literacy Secretariat march to it`s own drummer-why wouldn`t it be conscientious in hnouring this research the way an oncologist would honour research on the treatment outcomes for breast cancer?

Joanne points out the other side of the coin based on the science, research and thousands of reasons why learning to read well, is the foundation from which all education begins. The other side of the coin, is the right to read, and read well is not a legal right within our society. Nor are the other foundation skills regarding education, are rights defined in any legal context. As I certainly found out the hard way, dealing with the education authorities. In the legal context, the public education system is to provide the access to education opportunities, but not the effective instruction and tools, which are legally define based on costs or undue financial hardship.

Sure the number of SE students can be reduced to 6 percent in any school, but not under the present public education model, that offers opportunities, but not the hard-core skills needed to access the opportunities.

“Why does the Literacy Secretariat march to it`s own drummer-why wouldn`t it be conscientious in honoring this research the way an oncologist would honour research on the treatment outcomes for breast cancer? “

The Literacy Secretariat is not held down to the same legal liability, as the oncologist is, and the rest of the medical community. But perhaps the Moore case being heard in the Supreme Court of Canada, might change the legal liability for the public education systems of Canada. My only hope, that will shake the foundations of the public education systems to its bones, is resting on the case. Meanwhile, the public education systems will continued on barely meeting minimum legal requirements of the education of special needs students, and for that matter all students.

Until than, science will always be superseded by the so-called experts in education, their biases and beliefs, based on a pseudo-rights system to protect the legal rights of the public education system and to supersede the rights of students.

I’m not opposed, in general, to special needs education where it is clearly necessary.  But classifying someone as “special needs” is a self-fulfilling prophecy and can do much harm. 

System-induced dependency is an awful thing, and possibly the worst social ill in our society.  And it’s getting worse.