This brief was developed using Microsoft Copilot and edited by Charlotte Sutcliffe, Duke undergraduate research assistant; for full text and references see
Gage, N. A., Mattison, R. E., & Katsiyannis, A. (2023). Who exits special education back to General Education? exploring predictors of declassification - education and treatment of children. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43494-023-00107-8
Background:
This study investigates the rate at which students with disabilities (SWD) exit special education and return to general education, a process known as declassification. Using longitudinal data from North Carolina (2007–2018), the researchers analyzed over 388,000 students receiving special education services under four disability categories: Emotional Disturbance (ED), Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Other Health Impairments (OHI), and Speech or Language Impairments (SLI). The goal was to identify which student and school characteristics predict declassification.
Findings:
Data reveal that declassification is uncommon. Across 11 years, less than one percent of students with ED, SLD, OHI, and SLI exited special education. While declassification is rare, students with ED were significantly more likely to be declassified than those in other categories (0.8% vs 0.5% or less). This is notable given that ED is often associated with persistent behavioral challenges and lower academic outcomes.
The study also found that demographic factors influence declassification. Female students, Black students, and those from higher-income households were more likely to exit special education. Conversely, students in separate classrooms or alternative educational settings were less likely to be declassified. Some school-level factors such as attending a K–8 school or a rural school also increased the likelihood of declassification.
Importantly, the study highlights racial disparities. Black students with ED were more likely to be declassified than their White peers, raising questions about potential systemic biases or pressures to reduce racial disproportionality in special education. The authors caution that such patterns could reflect either improved interventions or problematic practices aimed at avoiding federal scrutiny.
Takeaways:
The study concludes that while special education is designed to support students with disabilities, very few students exit these services, suggesting that current interventions may not sufficiently remediate educational challenges. These findings also demonstrate the need for more research into the mechanisms behind declassification and for policies that ensure equitable, evidence-based decisions in special education placement and exit.