Welcome to the current issue of Special Education Today. This edition covers the week of 17 through 23 October 2022.

Status update

Subscriptions have actually moved this week. I think we lost zero and picked up four free subs. Also, special thanks to Kathleen M., Kimy L., Julie B., and Aletta S.—and, as always, to Mike G.

Flashes of the electrons

This week there are no acknowledgements of folks who posted comments, slapped likes, or disseminated content across social media. (Still, thanks to the many folks who continue to do so!) But, there is a special tip of my cap to my pal, Joel M., for his steadfast support.

Table of contents

There were eight new posts this week! In addition to the regular newsletter of last Monday, there were four other posts that I sent as e-mail notes. (If that seems like too many in your inbox, please let me know.). Also, there were four that I published on the Web site.

Here’s usual list of all the week’s posts:

• E. Hanford’s podcast on reading education is coming soon—What can you learn from a podcast?

• A mother’s response to inaccessible medical services—What resources are available to help professionals provide appropriate care?

• Some holiday display is missing an arm and so is some sped research—What does it cost to include another body part?

• Disrespecting people with disabilities—Why do medical doctors shun some people?

• Forthcoming EC articles—Would you like to read a paper or two ahead of publication?

• Episodes 1 and 2 of “Sold a Story”—Wouldn’t it be great for everyone involved in reading instruction to hear these podcasts?

• The Halloween decorations #17—Is that actually the correct number of posts in this photo series?

• Reports of missteps in the Ontario Autism Program—Are there problems with an Canadian program to support individuals with autism?

As usual, please be sure to check the Website. As the data on the number of posts for the past week indicate, I only send e-mail notices about some of them...I might post something in the next few days—you never know!

Commentary

Over the past week or so, I have been listening in on an active conversation among many colleagues about the fundamental nature of special education. The discussion has ranged from comments about how to assess or evaluate the quality of IEPs (see Yell et al., 2013, for a good intro, and Yell & Drasgow, 2014, for work on an instrument or measure) to a legal advocate’s (and a friend’s) statement of concerns about how IEPs are poorly implemented (they’re often unread by teachers, too long, too formulaic, and etc.) and his assertion that every student should have an IEP.

Well the discussion went all kinds of directions. Special friend of SET, Mike G. noted that were were other important papers regarding IEPs and state assessments (e.g., Shriner & DeStefano, 2003). Jimmy K. (Kauffman, 2022; another big pal of SET) remarked that the topic was important because it raised questions about labeling (which he favors, ‘cause how else can we identify who gets help?) and ensuring that kids with disabilities get services (which he also favors).

Although the conversation went lots of directions, it became clear that one big concern was that if one argues that all kids are special (they should all have IEPs), then no kids with disabilities can be considered special. They are already special! So their disabilities don’t make them special. So, by combining gened and sped, one can wash out special ed.

Those of us who are concerned about children with disabilities and advocating for special education have to be careful in what we says. Words matter.

I will say that I think we special educators should be put in charge of instruction for the vast majority of kids, because we have a better way of teaching than what usually happens in general ed. But, that doesn’t mean that we should abandon special ed. We still need to have mechanisms for ensuring that students with disabilities get instruction, environments, and consideration that meets their unique educational needs...while we provide evidence-based instruction (maybe not an IEP!) for the general population.

Of course, here’s the rub: Providing quality instruction costs $$. And, proposals for reforming education that cost $$ are going to encounter “blowback” about research that putatively shows that “throwing money at education problems doesn’t help.”

I think funding special education does help. I’d like to see it happen. I’d like to see the research that financing special education doesn’t work.

If these ideas cause you, dear reader, to think, “I shouldn’t subscribe to this newsletter,” so be it. Subscribing is your decision. If you bail on SET, OK. Please, still, stay safe and teach your children well.

For those who do not find this editorial anathema, I end here with familiar recommendations with an addition (or two): Give a damn about each other. Wear your seatbelts. Watch out for pedestrians (one of whom might be me on my exercise walks!) and cyclists (one of whom might be a neighbor’s child who doesn’t understand how dangerous it is to swerve out around parked cars!).

And, as I already noted, teach your children well.

JohnL
Your loyal founder and editor

Sources

Kauffman, J. M. (2022). This one, not that one: Toward revitalizing special education. In J. M. Kauffman (Ed.), Revitalizing special education: Revolution, devolution, and evolution (pp. 1-41). Emerald.

Shriner, J. G., & DeStefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900202

Yell, M., & Drasgow, E. (2014). IEP Quality Indicator Scale: Individualized education programs. Institute of Education Sciences.

Yell, M. L., Conroy, T., Katsiyannis, A., & Conroy, T. (2013). Individualized Education Programs (IEPS) and special education programming for students with disabilities in urban schools, Fordham Urban Law Journals, 41(669). https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol41/iss2/7