Here we go!1

Photo

We had the opportunity to visit Monticello this week. The iconic home of Thomas Jefferson was the site of a conversation between PBS journalist Judy Woodruff and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie who is also Monticello’s current Fritz and Claudine Kundrun Fellow about freedom of the press. It was the first in a series of talks billed as “Pursuits of Knowledge,” and one of many events held at Monticello.

After the talk, as the crowd thinned, I was able to get this image of the house from the west lawn. It’s not quite the “nickel view,” but the lighting made it different from the many other times I have seen the mansion from that general location.

Status update

SET welcomed a contributing author to the team this week. Although she had been working on it for a lot longer, this week Maha Al-Hendawi published her first piece for SET on 24 September. Maha is on the faculty of Qatar University. She is an accomplished scholar who is especially alert to special education and disabilities in the Arab speaking world, so she can help all of us know more about what is happening in the western part of Asia.

In addition to publishing posts this past week (the list, including Maha’s, is in the next section), there were some other goings on with SET, too.

Of importance, one of the events was that I got notice of a new supporting subscriber. So, everyone, please tip a hat, raise a glass, or say something nice in welcoming Chen S. to the little gang of folks who help make SET run on something more than the fumes of raw circulation. Chen joins other supporting subscribers, including Bob P., Alix H., Angelique W., Ann R., Callie O., Carol W., Christine T., Cindi S., Clay K., Dan H., Ed M., Ed P., Jane N., Janet J., Jeremy J., Jim F., Jose B., Joel M., Judy V., Kata S., Keith L., Kristin S., KT L., Larry M., Linda L., LuAnn J., Mary-Anne L., Meg D., Michele M., Micki D., Mike N., Mike N., Nancy M., Nancy S., Nicole V., Pam S., Paula C., Roberta B. , Sam B., Stephanie A.O., Sunil, Tim H., Trent T., and Vince C. (to mention just some of these folks).2 I hope I got these names right. Some subscribers have not created Substack profiles, so I must guess at the names from email addresses or from my own records. Also, I read through the records of paid subscribers and select those to show in these weekly lists of recognition on a quasi-random basis; if your name did not appear this week, please watch the future lists (and thanks to you, too).

As usual, here’s a special doff of the chapeau to SET’s patron-level subscribers: Mike G., Kathy M., and Anita A.

I am pleased to note, too, that there were seven new subscribers at the free level this past week. I do not have a count for how many folks unsubscribed, but the addition of these seven brings the total number of subscribers close to 1300.

That level of subscriptions is nice, but it is not as large as the subscription levels for some of the other folks who also read SET. Some Dear Readers have ‘stacks that are much more widely read than SET. Take a look at these four examples (and see some of what I read regularly):

• Emily K.’s Learn with Dr. Emily

• Holly K.’s The Bell Ringer

• Carl H.’s The Learning Dispatch

• Callie O.’s Special Education Action

I dearly wish that I could talk about discussions that we are having over on the Chat section of SET, but there is little happening over there. I think it presents a means for us to have brief discussions of current events and such. Thanks to Jannie KT and Betsy T. for contributing there in the past year or so, though.

SETlets (or “T’ o’ Contents”)

SET is a source for learning about the education of children with disabilities and their lives with their families. This past week reflects SET’s eclectic nature. There were posts about people, policy, research, and more. We hope that these articles provided valuable information to you, Dear Readers, but perhaps we should be covering other stories, instead. Write to us (well, to me, JWL) if you would like to see SET cover different “beats” than those one regularly sees…or skip some beats? Just reply to the email version of this newsletter or drop a comment on this post.

Here is the list with the one post for the paying peeps in the first clump and the public posts in the second. Note the authors’ initials are in parentheses after each item.

For the faithful

1. Providing students choices affects their behavior: In what ways and for whom is having students choose their activities beneficial? (JWL)

Out in the wild

1. Special Education Today Newsletter 6(12): Here’s the news and info for the week that began 14 September 2026 (JWL)

2. Please define “to teach”: What is a no-nonsense and succinct definition for “teaching?” (JWL)

3. Dan Hallahan to receive award from Salman Center for Disability Research: The center announced the recipients of awards in five areas of disability research (JWL & MA-H)

4. Remembering Ann Philomena Kaiser, 1948-2026: Professor Kaiser of Vanderbilt University passed away 13 September 2026 (JWL)

5. Friday catch-up notes—25 September 2026: How about these stories from this past week? (JWL)

6. Forthcoming resources on writing for primary grades: What has Sally Bergquist got up her sleeve?

7. Understood reported continuing confusion about ED changes: What do people know and believe about how the Trump administration is changing special education?

So, Dear Readers, that is what you got this week. If anyone is interested in finding these and other posts, please point a browser at https://www.SpecialEducationToday.com and review the archive of posts. The home page will show relatively recent posts, but there should be a button at the bottom that permits one to see “more” (or something like that). In addition, to perusing the archives, it is possible to search for posts using the magnifying glass at the top.

Of course, please be advised that not all of the posts are available to the general public. Some are reserved for readers with paid subscriptions. Join us1

Subscribe now

Comments

So, here’s the part of the newsletter, and of SET where I get to freelance a bit. I have few constraints on what I write in this little corner of our world. I probably offend some readers some of the time. I do not feel compelled to perform lots of research before typing the words for this section. I just get to spout!

And this week I am spouting about a concern that…well…concerns me. This week I am spouting about how much of contemporary conversations about education I see on the Intertubes are pretty much spin that is only tenuously connected to educational realities.

Before someone notes the wrong, I understand that these very comments are, in fact, a genuine illustration of the problem about which I am about to complain.

Here, however, is “the thing.” So much of what I see in “the press” about education is lightly sanded and varnished opinion. It reminds me of conversations I have heard—even participated in—among sports fans on Monday mornings. A group of people (often mostly males) working in a shared physical space stand around the [water cooler | coffee-machine | mail boxes] and quip about events (athletic contests?) they observed (usually on television) over the weekend. There conversation is certain amount of simple observation, incredulity, and one-ups-manship. The facts are usually only a jumping off place for people to express their own unique perspective or “take.”

Speaker 1: “That overtime win by the Elephants was fantastic! They stole the victory in the last few seconds!”

Speaker 2: “Oh that was great, but did you see that pass by Gonzalez to Aparicio in in the last minute of the? Aparicio’s path—the cuts and fakes? It was amazing!

Speaker 3: “Right, but like Jane Blow said when it happened—and she’s been around for a long time, so she should know—like she said, there’s no team that’s ever come back from that far down in the history of the Great Hero’s League.

“Haha,” one might say. But if you want to see similar yakking and spin, just search for posts about the latest PISA results, the rankings by country, the changes in the scores over time.

Writer 1: “Look at how horrible the PISA scores are! They just keep going down. It just shows how horrible our education systems are.

Writer 2: “Well, right, but look at how Country A is bucking the trend! The scores for A are going up for the second year in a row! That shows that A’s policies are the right policies.”

Writer 3: “Ha! Baloney! Country A has already adopted these horrible policies and we are going to see their scores sink next time PISA comes out. And I’m confident that Country R is going to rise because they are adopting new training that will make their scores grow immediately.

I marvel at spin such as I have illustrated here. The speakers or writers seem to have great confidence in their views, but I am a little less sure about those views. Why?

• There’s the basic evidence matter: The PISA scores on which they rely, for example, are aggregations at such a high level that they change only terrifically slowly. If one thinks of them as dots on a graph plotted over time, they go up and down, up and down. Stating that one dot is higher or lower is more easily said than shown statistically.

• And there’s the inference matter: Do we really know the cause of higher or lower scores? Did anyone experimentally manipulate changes in policy so that we can attribute changes in scores to those independent variables? Did Countries A, M, and T implement a phonics- and knowledge centric curriculum in Year -5, Countries F, L, and O implement a comparable curriculum in Year -3, and Countries D and S implement a comparable curriculum in Year -1? And, did each of those countries’ PISA Reading scores show clear, salutary rises in the years following the policy change?

I would like to see those commentators who are crowing about current evidence about education take a step back and perform a simple, logical analysis of their arguments. I am reluctant to accept the arguments of those who recommend reforming education based on analyses such as I have described here.

As Engelmann, Bateman, and I explained, too many arguments about educational reform take indirect and, frankly, illogical paths. They do not look at the problem in simple and plain terms. If one does take a clear-eyed look at the performance of students (i.e., their test scores), it is pretty clear that changes in instruction (i.e., teaching) provides the most direct path to improving outcomes. And that brings me to a third bullet to follow the two previous bullets:

• Teaching is hard and changing teaching at scale is really hard.

I hope that my spin on these matters helps some of us to step away from the abyss that is our interpretation of the meaning of educational crises (“Oh my, the PISA scores are falling, just like the sky, Chicken Little!”) and focus instead on changing things that are within reach and that might benefit kids. Instead of PISA reading scores, let us improve students’ words read correctly per minute, percentage of close items in a passage completed correctly, number of facts written in three minutes after reading a chapter, vocabulary items correctly matched with simple definitions, etc.

Okay, end rant.

Lest you think I might have forgotten, here are the usual recommendations: (a) Wear your seatbelts (and make sure your children’s seats are affixed properly). (b) Get vaccinations as appropriate. (c) Eat healthy foods. (d) Exercise. (e) Wash your hands (“you filthy animals”). (f) Watch out for your family, friends, and neighbors, and fellow denizens of Earth. And…and please, teach your children well.

JohnL

SET Editor guy

Charlottesville

Share

Subscribe now

Footnote

Here’s the lede for Understood’s post for “A year later: Parents still confused about changes at the Department of Education”:

In March 2025, Understood surveyed parents immediately after President Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. A year later, we went back into the field to see what had changed. The findings reveal a significant awareness gap, especially among parents whose children don’t have IEPs or 504 plans, and steady expectations about the impact on education quality.

From the page for the Understood post one can download a free copy of the full report. Readers of the full report will learn that not all parents know that oversight of special education will no longer be done by ED but that parents of students who have IEPs or 504 plans know more about the policy changes than parents of children without special-education related protections. And, there’s more in the report, too.

So, Dear Readers, go to the Understood page, “A year later: Parents still confused about changes at the Department of Education,” and secure your own copy of the survey report. Although it includes notes about methods, it is not a dense, indigestible document (only a couple of pages).

Understood.org is a non-profit devoted to helping people understand neurodivergence. It provides diverse resources. This report of the surveys fits nicely with other work that Understood is doing, including a forthcoming series of podcasts that promise to provide readily understood guidance about important policy changes in education for our kids. Stay tuned!

Subscribe now

The first post, published 21 September 2026, is called “A new spotlight on a normally backstage topic.” Here is how Sally started that post:

Confident writing starts with good foundational skills, which many kids never get.

Foundations start at the earliest grade levels. Every middle, high school and college teacher who expects students to write something should be out advocating great teaching in K-2! Why? Because this foundation will have a direct effect on student writing skills by the time they get to those later classrooms.

Writing gets little attention in comparison to other subjects, and K-2 writing almost none at all.

Sally went on to explain more about these concerns and then to list the topics about which she plans to write in her future posts. They sound very sensible and practical, so I’m registering to receive her articles. She promised to publish one article a month, so we won’t be overwhelmed.

Subscribe now

• Linda Diamond, of Linda Diamond Educator, posted a thoughtful rundown of recommendations for making multi-tiered systems of support work for students (and that includes students with disabilities) and solutions. Read “MTSS at the Crossroads” for valuable guidance.

• Over on SBSK, Chris Ulmer has a video of two children, Ella and Sky who both have Rett syndrome and are “best friends.” As he filmed “Nonspeaking Best Friends with the Same Rare Syndrome (Rett),” the two girls, their two sets of parents explained about the syndrome and each girl’s unique characteristics.

• Michelle Diament of Disability Scoop published a story 21 September 2026 about a new program called Systems for Phenotypic Evaluation, Clinical Trajectories, Response, and Agency being introduced by the US Department of Health and Human Services. Read it at “New Autism Research Initiative Aims To Speed Diagnosis, Personalize Care.”

• In addition to its usual content about developmental disabilities, the Conn Sense Bulletin for September 2026 had notes about free Ray-Ban AI glasses for blind veterans (originally from Blinded Veterans Association). See BVA’s “Free Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses For Every Blind Veteran in America” for more and then be sure to read the Conn Sense Report for many additional nuggets.

• Over on Ed Week for 18 September 2026, Mark Liberman reported that jurists had ruled that US Education actions thwarting distribution of research money and cancelling teacher education grants were unlawful, and these rulings may affect special education projects. See Mr.. Liberman’s article, “Trump’s Education Funding Maneuvers Were Illegal, Judges Rule: Judges ruled in suits about teacher-training grant cancellations and withheld education research money ”

• Jack McElaney posted for Accessibility in the News this week, even though he hadn’t planned to do so. His notes about “Accessibility Works Best When Disabled People Help Design It” are the usual mix: Rich and filling.

Share

Subscribe now

In recognition of Ann’s extensive contributions, many organizations honored her with awards. Peabody College at Vanderbilt gave her its Outstanding Faculty Award in 1984. The ARC, then called the National Association for Retarded Citizens, recognized her as Educator of the Year in 1989;. The American Association on Mental Retardation and Divisions 25 and 34 of the American Psychological Association named her as a fellow in 1989. She held leadership offices in Division 33 of the APA and received its Edgar Dahl Award. The Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children gave her its Mary McEvoy Service Award in 2012 and CEC presented her with its Lifetime Service Award in 2014. The American Association for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities recognized her with its Outstanding Researched Contributions Award. In generating the foregoing list, I selected fewer than half of the awards, honors, and special appointments Ann received over the years. Of them all, I think Ann’s greatest honor was serving as the founding holder of the Susan W. Gray Chair of Education and Human Development of Peabody College at Vanderbilt University from 2006 until her passing.

Ann completed an undergraduate degree at Kansas State University in 1970 and then took a doctoral degree from the University of Kansas in 1974, after which she completed post-doctoral work with funding from the National Institutes of Health at KU. She continued working at KU on preschool language until she took a position in 1982 at Vanderbilt. While rising through the ranks to professor at Vanderbilt, she worked with the Kennedy Center, chaired the department of special education (for two separate periods), directed the Susan Gray School, and perfumed many other duties. While completing those many essentially administrative responsibilities, she maintained an active teaching and research career, mentoring students studying language and instruction as well as conducting scores of research studies.

Ann’s academic record is stunning. No one would have to use air quotes when they said she was a scholar. Ann was an author on scores of articles that appeared in the most prestigious journals in special education, child development, language development, early childhood education, autism, intellectual disabilities, behavioral psychology, and related areas. She wrote and contributed to many chapters in edited books and even edited a few of them along the way. She secured and directed external funding for dozens of projects and contributed to many more. And the work that she did was not just voluminous, but it was recognized for its contributions, being cited tens of thousands times.

Ann Philomena Kaiser was the daughter of Loretta Marie Achatz Kaiser (1915–2002) and Johann Friedrich Leonard (known as “John” and “Jake”) Kaiser (1911–1973). The obituary for Ann’s mother noted that Loretta Kaiser was ““longtime volunteer and board member” of the Association of Retarded Citizens (predecessor to The Arc). Ann was the eldest of three siblings; her brother James was born in 1950 (deceased 2006) and her sister Kathryn (“Kay”) was born in 1954 (deceased 2024). Ann was married to William Ross Spears (deceased 2003) and her obituary identify Kye Fleming as her partner at the time of her passing.

• Peabody College of Vanderbilt published a faculty bio about Ann Kaiser.

• Vanderbilt University MyVU News published a new report 17 September 2026 about her passing: “Ann Kaiser, esteemed professor and early childhood language researcher, has died: Kaiser served as the Susan W. Gray Professor of Education and Human Development and was a member of the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center.”

• Ann’s hometown newspaper, the Great Bend Tribune, published an obituary 22 September 2026 that was simply entitled, “Ann P. Kaiser 1948 - 2026.” One can also read the Crawford Funeral Home obituary for Ann Kaiser (published without a date) that probably was the source of the obit in the Tribune.

Share

The awards for 2026, which is the fourth round of the awards, are made in five specific areas of research. The areas and the recipients are as follows:

1. Rehabilitation and Social Sciences: Christopher Gerard Maher (AU) and Stefano Negrini (IT);

2. Technological Applications in Disability: Conor Walsh (IE) and Rory Alan Cooper (US);

3. Health and Medical Sciences: Stephen Wayne Scherer (CA) and Valerie Lvovitch Viegon (NZ);

4. Psychological and Educational Sciences: Daniel Patrick Hallahan (US);

5. Universal Accessibility: Abdul Latif Al-Fawzan Autism Center (SA) and ACCEL International Ajyal Center (SA).

Dan certainly is a deserving recipient. As the links to the other recipients indicate (those that we could chase down), he is in elite company. That’s because his contributions in research, leadership, and advocacy are way up there. He is “Dan the Man.”

The Award is administered by the King Salman Center for Disability Research, which was established more than three decades ago in response to a need for stronger disability research in Saudi Arabia. The Center reports more than 700 completed research projects, with contributions in areas including national disability policy and legislation, accessibility guidelines, newborn screening and early intervention, learning disabilities, and the Saudi National Mental Health Survey, and more recently assistive technology and AI.

Work on the Award began in 2008, and the first cycle was held in 2014. It initially covered health-medical sciences, education, and rehabilitation-social sciences. It expanded to include technological applications and universal accessibility, a shift that mirrors the broader movement of disability research from diagnosis and rehabilitation toward technology, accessibility, and participation. Participation has also widened considerably since the first cycle, which drew researchers from 42 countries.

The center hosts a ceremony, attended by Saudi Royalty, to recognize the recipients and to highlight efforts to serve individuals with disabilities. Recipients give brief presentations and receive certificates, trophies, and cash prizes of ⃁400-500,000 (~$100-130,000 US).1

The King Salman International Award for Disability Research has become one of the most recognized honors for disability research in the Arab world. It reflects Saudi Arabia’s long-standing investment in the field and is known for its rigorous scientific evaluation, recognizing researchers and institutions whose work has made a measurable scientific and societal contribution. Its regional visibility is strong: the fourth cycle, for example, was circulated through the Association of Arab Universities to encourage participation from universities, research centers, and faculties across the region. Its reach is international too, with the fourth edition attracting 770 nominations from 111 countries across six continents, according to a press release from the center.

The Center for Disability Research was founded by King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud in his responsibility for maintaining the Al-Haram Mosque in Mecca and the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina. The elevation of work on disability to this high level of visibility and respect is wonderful achievement.

• KSCDR award site

• Wikipedia: King Salman Award for Disability Research

Share

Subscribe now

Footnote

I poked about on the Intertubes, and it seemed to me that often the word is used without much clear definition. In fact—warning: scatology ahead—many of the references to “teaching” I found were pony poop. People just don’t get what it takes to teach.

I decided we ought to take a look at the meaning of “teaching,” so I wrote this post. I wanted to work toward an objective definition of teaching that could provide structure to future posts about research, effectiveness, and practice.

I amassed notes as I went along searching those ‘tubes. I have some softer and some harder notes, and I’ll present them pretty straightly. Please don’t mistake this for a literature review. It is not, by any reasonable stretch. It’s just a morass of observations.

The notes fall into categories that I shall use to organize this content: popular uses, quotes, definitions, and data-driven methods, and then a proposal followed by some summary observations.

Popular uses

Part of the difficulty in understanding “teaching” is that the word is used in so many different ways. In common parlance, “to teach” (and its cognates) is—well—common. “Teach” just seems to get tossed around.

Some Dear Readers may have heard observations, comments, and statements such as these:

• “Yes, I’m a teacher.”

• “That’ll teach him!”

• “Oh, I teach English. I don’t teach reading.”

• “Ordinary experience is a powerful teacher.”

• “Teaching is only part of the job of being a teacher.”

• “I’m teaching a unit on the water cycle.”

• “That’s just teaching to the test.”

Though such popular uses may communicate an idea about teaching in the context in which they are used, these everyday uses are rarely based on a careful analysis of the meaning of the word “teach.” They are usually a kind of short hand for an idea about something sort of vague.

I want to talk about teaching as an action, something that happens in space and time, I want to talk about teaching in schools, where it is supposed to happen regularly. I am not aiming for something from the romantic tradition…more the scientific perspective.

Quotes

One can find lots of quotes about teaching. I suspect there is an entire book somewhere that aggregated quotes. Many of us, Dear Readers, have seen quotes such as the following. They talk about the meaning of teaching.

As a warm-up for this post, here are a few quotes (with links pointing to biographies of the speakers).

• Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt.—Clarence Darrow

• I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn.—Albert Einstein

• Good teaching is one-fourth preparation and three-fourths theater.--Gail Godwin

• The best teacher is the one who suggests rather than dogmatizes, and inspires his listener with the wish to teach himself.—Edward Bulwer-Lytton []

• The teacher must derive not only the capacity, but the desire, to observe natural phenomena. The teacher must understand and feel her position of observer: the activity must lie in the phenomenon.—Maria Montessori

Some of these quotations, and many others with which we may be familiar are just quotes, of course. They are only what people said. That is, they are talk. They are subjective observations. So, we have to be cautious about reading deeply into them. Still, they can help sharpen our thinking.

These quotes are, I think, good hearted or well-intentioned. They communicate often-ephemeral ideas. They emphasize inspiration as a critical feature of teaching. Indeed, some of these quotations seem to have the purpose of inspiring us to appreciate teaching.

None of these quotations, however, provide objective and operational descriptions of teaching. They do not tell what the teacher does in observable terms.

Definitions

To help move us ahead, let us consider the definitions of teaching offered by some experts.

These statements are valuable, because they describe observable actions that someone would take to teach concepts and operations, to inform a learner about ideas and procedures for accomplishing things.

Descriptions

Some readers might suggest that a more objective description of teaching could be had by considering evidence-based teaching practices. They might say that those practices that have been shown to improve students’ learning offer an appropriate way to define teaching. For example, they might recommend the principles of instruction described by Barak Rosenshine (2012; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986).

Others might refer to the list of “high-leverage practices” (McLesky et al., 2019)1 The Web site for HLPs describes them thusly: “A deceptively simple concept, HLPs are a relatively small set of key practices all educators should know and have in their toolbelt.” The 22 HLPs folks organized in four “domains”: (1) collaboration, (2) data-driven planning, (3) instruction in behavior and academics, and (4) intensify and intervene as needed. As can be inferred from reading the names of the domains, although some HLPs describe specific actions (e.g., HLP 8 is “Provide Positive and Constructive Feedback to Guide Students’ Learning Gand Behavior”), most of the HLPs refer to broad collections of teaching actions (e.g., HLP 11: “Identify and Prioritize Long- and Short-Term Learning Goals”)

The Rosenshine principles, the HLPs, and other descriptions of particular parts of teaching are helpful because they move us more toward talking about actions that can be coded, counted, But they are a bit too molecular to serve as a definition of teaching.

What is the generic of these actions? That’s where I want us to go.

A proposal

Some observant readers may have noted that I slipped a ringer into the earlier table listing authorities’ definitions. I used a definition from Bateman (1971) that I think actually comes pretty close to what we need. Here it is again:

That’s nice. It’s succinct. It focuses on objective matters. It’s dang straight-forward.

Let’s take a closer look at Bateman’s definition. Let’s consider the words and phrases that compose it.

1. Some readers might object to the use of the word “manipulation,” considering it heartless or too mechanical. Okay, I hear that. To me this objection sounds like the ‘plaint of a romantic who thinks of education as a horticultural endeavor where one hopes to nurture young minds as they develop naturally. The extent to which we see the word “:manipulate” as unsympathetic, however, is pretty much on the shoulders of the person who is hearing it that way. But, teachers actually do operate, change, demonstrate, or modify things when they teach. That is, they manipulate. Shoot, even a reading a poem to a class is manipulating words. So, “manipulate” is OK…you have to do something to teach.

2. Some readers might object to the words “environmental variables” as being used in teaching. But, wait? What the heck else do teachers modify or change in front of their students? One might say, “ideas” or “concepts,” “illustrations” or “examples,” etc. And, I might agree and then ask, what do teachers do to manipulate the ideas or examples? Well, I guess they would change the words, or the displays, or something else in the learning environment, something rather observable. A lesson, in this sense, is at base a set of directions for making changes in the environment surrounding the learners. Those environmental variables might by pictures, sounds, words…even smells. I am happy with “manipulating environmental variables.”

3. “Wait!” some folks might say, “You’re ignoring the word that’s the biggest problem: ‘behavior!’” I hope you might agree that it is actually behavior that we hope to change when we teach something. What else might we hope to change? Some folks might say that learning isn’t really about behavior, but they will ultimately have to admit that the only way to ascertain whether someone has learned something is to assess behavior. Does the learner say or write accurate answers?2 Does the learner perform the steps of an algorithm in the proper order? How do we know she remembers? How do we know they examined something? How does the learner demonstrate mastery other than by some action, some behavior? So, the word “behavior” belongs here.

4. Well, what about the word “cause?” That word is exactly the right one. Teaching must produce outcomes. There should be a direct and dang near linear connection between teaching and learning. It is nearly laughable to say, as many of us have probably heard people say, “I taught it. They just didn’t get it.” “To teach” is an active verb; one teaches something. We want to cause the learners to know something (concepts or declarative knowledge) or to know how to do something (operations or procedural knowledge).

5. “Predicted?” Yes, that is correct. It is sorely tempting to do a lot of “teaching” and then simply take credit for anything that the students could say or do at a later time. Error! If a teacher is simply going to manipulate the environment (do stuff; present a lesson, demonstrate an experiment, have students solve a problem or set of problems, etc.), for what purpose is the teacher doing all that stuff? I think we would agree that the purpose was (or ought to be) for the students (also known as learners) to learn something. So, what will they learn? Please predict how their behavior will be different because of the teaching. One should not hope to get credit simply for throwing the dart; one wants the dart to hit the target—and preferably the center ring on the target. Think about Robert Mager’s clarity about objectives: State the behavioral objective of the teaching.

So, rereading her definition, I think Bateman nailed it. She provided a crisp, sharp statement the explained what the action of teaching is and its purposes.

Conclusion

I hope that this ramble through the morass of the language we use has sparked lots ideas for you, Dear Readers. I have little hope, however, that it is taught you anything. It’s just been a lot of my yammering into the megaphone.

Still, I hope that it helps us stop, take a step back, and reflect on the myriad of recommendations one e can find on the Web these days about improving teaching. Just think about, for example, all the recommendations that one can find for improving instruction (especially in reading) these days. How many of those recommendations consider teaching at the level that we have here?

I see too many recommendations about teaching that address unobservable processes and subjective outcomes. We special educators know that teaching requires more than having students master letter-sound correspondences and sounding-out strategies. Yes, we may need to teach them chemistry. But we also need to understand teaching of self-care procedures, discriminations about when to start crossing streets, even how to say “yes” and “no.”

Educators know better. Special educators know how important it is to think of teaching in fundamental, objective terms. We need to take no-nonsense looks at what people recommend about teaching.

Subscribe now

Oh, and, sorry. There’s no AI here…well, very little…I used ChatGPT to generate the images in the figure showing different views of teaching. As for the words, I composed this myself.

References

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford.

Bateman, B. (1971). The essentials of teaching. Otter Ink.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Feron.

McLeskey, J., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M. T., Maheady, L., & Lewis, T. J. (2019). What are high-leverage practices for special education teachers and why are they Important? Remedial & Special Education, 40(6), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773477

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, spring, 12-19; 39.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [BF Skinner Foundation, 2016, https://www.bfskinner.org/product/the-technology-of-teaching-pdf/]

Footnotes

Advocates of choice can spin off all manner of benefits. The theory predicts effects from the grand (increased autonomy and self-concept) to the practical (students get more work done). Teachers who rely on evidence to assess the value of practices will, of course, wonder what credible research reports would reveal about the benefits of offering choice. In a 2026 article in Journal of Positive Behavior Supports,

Read more

It was a wonderful week, right?

Yes, it was! So, let’s get right to it!

Share

Photo

On the good news front, I went out again this week. Bryan C., Michael K., and I lunched at a local pizza place (where else would one go with Michael?). It was the Christians on the downtown mall.

There are at least two problems with this photo (and neither problem is one the subjects, other than the photographer). First, I should not have used the bright window as the background. Second, I should have shown a slice of pie hanging out of my mouth.

It was actually a splendid time. I greatly appreciate my colleagues taking time from their real lives to humor the old man, to get me out on the town. I hope we can do it again and attract a few of the other local SET community members to join us.

Status update

Substack reported 1280 subscribers for SET and greater than 1700 total followers. SET is a niche publication. It’s not like some on Substack that have mass market appeal. The audience will never be in the 100s of 1000s, but we can hope that we can get 1000s to share with us.

About 40% of visitors to SET come to posts directly. (You, Dear Subscribers would be in that group.) About 20% come from search engines such as Gaagle. Another 15% come from email (probably messages you, Dear Readers, share). About 9% each come from people who found SET via Substack or Faceplant. The remaining ~5% come from other social media (e.g., “twitter,'“ LinkedIn), search engines (e.g., Bing), and similar sources.1

I’m pleased to see continued growth in the size of the community. I hope you can continue to promote SET to your friends, colleagues, family members, and others. They are welcome to subscribe!

There were one new paying subscriber, Maha Al-H., this week. It’s great to have Maha joining Angelique W., Anita A., Bob P., Christine T., Clay K., Dan H., Ed M., Janet J., Joel M., Kathy M., Kristin S., Larry M., Linda L., Mary-Anne L., Michele M., Mike G., Mike N., Pam S., Pam S., Mary Anne L., Kristin S., Hill W., Larry M., Christine T., Joel M. (did I already mention him?), and Ed P…among others.

Meanwhile, welcome to those folks who are new subscribers on the free side. It’s great to have you here and I hope you find SET valuable. I also hope you’ll share and, perhaps join the paying folks in helping make SET available even more widely.

SETlets (AKA “table of contents”)

Look! Look!2

I have changed the heading here. I happened to be looking at a message from 2025 in which long-time subscriber Joel M. suggested alternative names for this section. As a result of consulting my faulty memory, I had been using “spedlettes” (and probably other spellings, too). But, Joel had actually suggested “SETLETS.” It is better, and I should have been using it. So I’m going to use it…now let us see, Dear Readers, for now long I remember this correction. Check next week.

1. Special Education Today newsletter 6(11): What went down in SET-land the week that began 7 September 2026?

2. Increasing writing output for German students: Does a package of reinforcement improve students’ written production?

3. Curtis Pride models success despite deafness: What has Mr. Pride done?

4. US state governors oppose US Justice Department’s reinterpretation of Olmstead: What are the governors saying about people with disabilities seeking community-based services?

5. Sold a Story in video: What is Emily Hanford doing?

6. Diabetes screening in early childhood: What are the implications for children with developmental disabilities?

7. Friday catch-up notes—18 September 2026: What about stories that didn’t show up as a full post this week?

8. A young person explains autism and borderline personality disorder from the her own perspective: Shouldn’t a first-person account of having a disability promote understanding and support?

9. CEC Division for Research awards nominations are open: For what awards is DR seeking nominations?

I get the prize for “author of the week.” I wrote all of these!

The articles for this week were all on the free side of SET, but they will go behind the paywall in a a couple of weeks. Please read them now, if you are a free subscriber. (Better yet, become a supporter so that you can read them again anytime.)

Be sure to check the SET Web site to keep current. On the site, one can find an HTML-formated version of this newsletter as well as any newer posts (and a link to archived posts, with some available to free subscribers and all available to supporting subscribers) and a sorta-kinda subject index to the archives called “clumps.” The a tour the next time you are stuck on hold, in a faculty meeting, waiting for an appointment, or similarly vacant time.

Commentary

In the fall 2026 elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, there is a ballot item that I think merits broad consideration, because it bears on disability. Virginia voters are asked to vote on an amendment to the Virginia Constitution about who is qualified to vote in elections.

Voting by whom?

The top line issue in the proposed amendment on which Virginia voters will have their say is about whether people who have been disqualified from voting because they were convicted of a felony may regain their right to vote after having served the sentence for the felony of which they were convicted. Once someone has done her time, should she be able to vote in subsequent elections?

As one might guess, this is a matter of intense political interest. It is also a test about one’s view of psychology; are personalities inherently good or bad? Once a felon, always a felon?

However, interesting those topics may be, there is a second part of the purposed amendment that brings disability into sharper focus. Here is the text of the statement that will appear on the ballot for Virginia voters:

Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?

Please go back and reread phrase iii. So, uhm. people who are found to be “mentally incompetent” are prohibited from voting, and this amendment would update that prohibition so that applies to people who “lack the capacity to understand the act of voting.”

I have not read the legislative record on this proposed amendment, but I have to wonder what is proposed to be the standard for whether someone has “the capacity to understand the act of voting.”

• Start with whether someone can “understand the act of voting.” How do we determine that someone has that understanding?

• Now, back out a step and consider the “capacity” to understanding something. What is the test for “the capacity to understand the act of voting?”

But, wait…by whom?

Now, please let me add to my confusion. I posted a note about an article from the NY Times column called “The Ethicist.” It’s entitled, “My Developmentally Disabled Sister Can’t Vote Herself. Can Our Mother Cast a Ballot For Her? Kwame Anthony Appiah, the author of “The Ethicist,” That is not ethical for a mother to exercise her child’s right to vote on her behalf.

I think Mr. Appiah made the right call. However, I want to defend the right for individuals with disabilities to exercise their franchise. People with disabilities should, in my view, get to vote. They are citizens who, if not felons, should have a say in the government that affects their lives and freedoms.

But, here's the rub: Should any and all exercise their right to vote? Individuals with schizophrenia? Autism? Dyslexia? Is there a qualification? And, here we are back to the proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution. How should we determine whether someone has the capacity to understand the act of voting?

But…wait, who’s voting?

How about one more complication? Suppose that the individual who is voting is doing so via, let’s just say, facilitated communication? Rapid prompting?

Surely, the matter of who is doing the voting comes back to Mr. Appiah’s observations. And, perhaps it should come back to the currently-hot topic in the US about voter fraud.

Let me circle back (if I may use the popular phrase). I think that our fellow humans who have disabilities should be able to cast their ballots. I would want us—the other voters—to honor their votes just as we would honor our family members’, neighbors’, and friends’ (and enemies’).

But I get stuck on the questions about whether their votes are their own. The difficulty is in determining that “capacity to understand.” It is not in the matter of whether someone else is voting for the individual.

What is that capacity? Surely, I hope no one) will suggest a cut point on a measure of IQ or a maturity scale. How do we know that someone with a disability should be able to vote independently and privately?

Literature?

Most readers of SET will not be surprised that there is a substantial literature on this topic. It is broad (dare I say, “diverse”) and extensive.

I searched preliminarily and found a lot of articles. Do your own searches. As you might suspect, those I found were mostly philosophy and spin. To be sure there were some data-based studies, but they were only descriptive.

We are not likely to get experimental research about the such topics. After all, what is the criterion variable? Is it casting a vote? Is it casting a vote for the “correct” candidate? Okay,

In the absence of evidence, and in the situation where we are not likely to have strong empirical evidence, what should we advocates and educators say?

Probably we should have gotten to our legislators before they put before us the question about whether voters should

update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?

I am saddened by the fact that I took three strikes when I could have been at bat with the Virginia legislature in crafting the language of this amendment. In the context of the famous observation by US political figure that “all politics is local” [sic], I should have been more alert. My bad.
Dear Readers, please do not replicate my mistake. Please put your fingers up into the air and see which way the winds are blowing. And when issues about individuals with disabilities blow by, please take note and volunteer your expertise.

Doing so is just a part of our efforts to take care of kids, ourselves, our friends and family member's, and even our pets. And I hope that you remember our familiar entreaties: Wear your seatbelts (and implore passengers in your vehicle wear them, too). Wash your hands frequently, like Jimmy Kauffman did. Prefer gathering in safe spaces. Eat healthily and help others to do so (maybe cut down on pizza?). Exercise regularly. And, of course, teach our children well.

JohnL
SET Editor guy
Charlottesville

SET should not be confused with a product with nearly the same name that is published by the Council for Exceptional Children. SET predated CEC’s publication by decades. Despite my appreciation for CEC, this product is not affiliated with that organization.

Footnotes

These are prestigious awards. Recipients of them, including many members of the Special Education Today community, are among the most widely recognized researchers in special education.

The accompanying photo shows the usual suspects at the award ceremony in 2013 when Lynn and Doug Fuchs received the Kauffman-Hallahan-Pullen Award.

Here is a partial list1 of the recipients of the K-H-P Award over the years: Hill Walker; Lynn and Doug Fuchs; Mary Brownell; Karen Harris and Steve Graham; Rob Horner; Kathleen Lane; Naomi Zigmond; Ann Turnbull; Nancy Jordan; Patricia Snyder; Sam Odom; and Paul Morgan.

Here is a photo of a group of students whom DR recognized in 2015. I regret that I do not have the names of all the students, but at the extreme left and right are Jean Crockett and Mary Theresa Kiely, respectively, leaders of the selection team.

Share

Subscribe now

Visit the DR Web pages—the image of the flyer is also linked—to learn more about the awards, including eligibility and nomination procedures.

Footnote

Here are some ofs Ms. Ulmer’s notes on the interview:

Morgan was diagnosed with autism at four years old. As she grew older, she survived repeated abuse and experienced lasting trauma. She was eventually diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and complex PTSD in addition to autism.

In this interview, Morgan speaks openly about what it is like to live with BPD. She discusses the intensity of her emotions, how the condition affects her relationships, and the stigma she has encountered from people who misunderstand the diagnosis. She also explains the overlap between autism and BPD, and how living with both can create an especially difficult dynamic.”

Click the video to watch the interview on YouTube. Follow this link to Morgan’s Interview to learn. more about Mr. Ulmer’s interview (including the foregoing quotation about the interview) and about the SBSK advocacy work (and how to support it).

Share

• Reporting for Disability Scoop on 16 September 2026, Shaun Heasley reported the story of Poul Thorsen, MD-PhD, pleading guilty to charges that he diverted grant funds to his own person al use, in “Autism Researcher Admits to Stealing CDC Funds.” Dr. Thorsen’s research, which focused on connections between biological factors and developmental disabilities, is sometimes employed in the debate about vaccines and autism, is not the topic of the fraud changes; he misused grant funds to pay for vehicles (including a motorcycle) and other non-research costs. See also

  • Dutch Wikipedia article (in Dutch) about Poul Threson;

  • US Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Georgia, 8 May 2026: “Autism researcher extradited from Germany to face federal charges of stealing CDC grant money’

  • Sasha Pazenik, 8 May 2026, ABC News: “CDC researcher accused of stealing over $1 million in grant funding extradited to US: Danish scientist Poul Thorsen was indicted on fraud charges in 2011” (she shows connections of Thorsen with the vaccine-autism topic);

  • Trevor Hughes, 9 May 2026, USA Today, “Vaccine researcher to face charges accusing him of stealing CDC funds"

• In the Kansas City Star Gary Blumenthal published an editorial 4 September 2026. It’s entitled “60 years of disability progress helped my brother. I fear we’re reversing it“ and (as one can surmise from the title) it is about 2026 changes in public policy that may interfere with community living for individuals with autism (and those who have other disabilities). [The KC Star is paywalled.]

Share

Subscribe now

Although the researchers did not directly examine it, I thought this finding was of special interest, because children with disabilities—including autism, Down syndrome, or intellectual disability (Dhanasekara et al., 2023; Lagan et al., 2020; Wallén et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2025)—are at higher risk for developing diabetes. Indeed, the value of screening for our kids seems especially important. Those who are at risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be reassessed regularly to monitor for the onset of diabetes. And, they could be candidates for early—and we would hope, preventative— intervention.

Parents of children with disabilities will, I hope, request screening. Even though diabetes may not be an educational issue, in consideration of students’ general well-being, educators of children with disabilities should alert parents to the value of screening.

Share

References

Dhanasekara, C. S., Ancona, D., Cortes, L., Hu, A., Rimu, A. H., Robohm-Leavitt, C., ... & Kahathuduwa, C. N. (2023). Association between autism spectrum disorders and cardiometabolic diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(3), 248-257.

Lagan, N., Huggard, D., Mc Grane, F., Leahy, T. R., Franklin, O., Roche, E., ... & Molloy, E. J. (2020). Multiorgan involvement and management in children with Down syndrome. Acta Paediatrica, 109(6), 1096-1111.

Wallén, E. F., Ljunggren, G., Carlsson, A. C., Pettersson, D., & Wändell, P. (2018). High prevalence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obesity among persons with a recorded diagnosis of intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(4), 269-280.

Winkler, C., Friedl, N., Abt, R., Ackermann, K., Bently, J., Braig, S., Brämswig, S., Dunstheimer, D., Ermer, U., Dominik, E., Gerstl, E.-M., Hammersen., J., Haupt, F., Hergi, M., Hubemann, M., Hummel, S., Jochem, B., Knopff, A., Lange, K., Lwowsky, D., Neilen-Hellmutg, N., Prey, B., Rettner, D., Schill, S., Schmidet, S., Scholz, M., Sindichakis, M., Stock, J., Stricker, D., Völkl, T. M., K, Warnocke, K., Weber, L, Weiss, A., Bonifacio, E., Achedbach, P., & Ziegler, A.-G. (2026). Screening children for early-stage type 1 diabetes. JAMA, 335(23), 2046-2056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2025.105167

Yin, C., Deng, C., Crespi, C. M., Bar, S., Carey, C. D., Brickner, M. E., Chack, E., Schafer, E. C., Barjaktorevic, I., Inoue, K., Hansen, J., & Heck, J. E. (2025). The relation between Down syndrome and co-occurring conditions in children and young adults: A population-based cohort in Denmark, 1977–2016. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 167, 105167.

Subscribe now

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more