Here we move ahead to volume 2 number 10 of Special Education Today. I think I have the dates and volumes(numbers) right...but, well, you know, I may be unreliable. Therefore, I encourage you to check me for credibility. If I say something is a fact, I should be able to provide evidence. You’re good readers and you’ll determine whether what I’m saying requires evidence.

Meanwhile, in this issue you’ll get the usual. (For evidence of veracity, please catalog the contents of the previous 50+ issues...do a little qualitative factor analysis.) I think you’ll find that the previous issues include (a) a status report, (b) notes of appreciation to readers, (c) a table showing the posts from the past week, and (d) a little commentary. Not 100% the same, but generally pretty consistent! (And not much lying!)

Please read all the free content on the Web at https://www.specialeducationtoday.com.

Status update

I think we went 2-for-4 this week in the free class. There were two new subscribers and two unsubscribers for SET this past week. Welcome to those new folks. It appears that there were zero new paid subscribers. I’m hoping for those paid subscriptions; they help support the effort to make SET accessible to folks around the world.

All readers can see those posts that are available for free (e.g., this newsletter). They will also see some posts that only show the first few paragraphs before displaying a paywall. Paid subscribers will see everything immediately. Although free subscribers get to comment on some posts, paid subscribers get to comment on all posts. And paid subscribers get all the premium content, the posts that only go to them.

Thanks (AKA: Flashes of the electrons)

You, all my dear subscribers, have helped SET grow. Thanks to those of you who share posts! Please keep on passing the word about SET.

And a special thanks to those of you, people whom I admire greatly and consider my long-time colleagues, for your personal notes via back channels. Please don’t be strangers to other readers! Follow the lead of Joel M., Mike G., Clay K., and Dan H. (and others!). Drop your comments publicly!

You subscribers are also the reason for other visits. Every week there are greater than 1000 unique visits (i.e., with an average of a couple of visits from each individual IP address). People are coming to SET (some from search engines like DuckDuckGo), but we need more of them to generate a vibrant community. So please keep on sharing!

Y’all were pretty active this past week.

Mike G, Dan H., Jane B., Clay K, and Joel B. all dropped comments this past week. Thank you! Comments are wonderful because they engender additional reading and even more comments! Special shout out to Joel for his comment mentioning Marc Gold; Gold, a blast from the past, merits a full-on discussion, and maybe Joel (and some others who remember those days) would be willing to contribute!

• Sharers included Tina C and Maryanne L. They exploited the authority of the following button!

Share

• Likers: Tina C., MaryAnne L., Angelique W., Lysandra C., Jeannie K.-T., Lorraine S., Ronnie D., Adria H., Joel M., Clay K., Dan H. Thanks, y’all, for providing feedback and helping others be alert to content!

Table of contents

Make sure you go to the Web site to see the most current content; new posts will drop throughout the coming week (and, if I have the time, more often than the past week). You’ll find a Web-styled version of this newsletter as well as any newer posts.

• A Greg Ashman post of interest—What’s going on in his world?

• Musical interlude #4 —How does monitoring help?

• Responsibility for using effective practices— With whom does the responsibility lie?

• ASAT SIAT 19(8)—Did you already see this?

• Students don’t have disabilities—Hunh? What?

Commentary

I struggle sometimes with people’s (and my own) efforts to make too much of a particular instance of something. In fact, for those who have been following the Musical Interludes, you may not be surprised that a forthcoming item in that series has to do with avoiding over-interpretation of an single event (behavior or study).

For those of you who read Exceptional Children, you may know that I have reservations about making much out of studies of data from one state or local education agecny. I worry that those data may reflect the policies and procedures of that agency more than they do the universal conditions of special education.

Some of you who suffered through classes or lectures I deliverd may remember that I often quoted Ludwig Wittengstien’s first arguments in the Oxford lectures (“The Blue Book”1):

“Let us explain the word “tove” by pointing to a pencil and saying “this is tove”. ... Now the ostensive definition “this is tove” can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. I will give a few such interpretations and use English words with well established usage. The definition then can be interpreted to mean:

“This is a pencil”,

“This is round”,

“This is wood”,

“This is one”,

“This is hard”, etc. etc.

The point (not the pencil point!) to me is that any one instance (e.g., “this is tove”) is open to innumerable possible interpretations. “This is big,” “this is cylindrical,” “this is held in the hand,” or “this is green.” What those statements mean requires context. What isn’t “big” or “green?”

Next step: If we want to teach learners (kids, adults, ourselves) something, we need to attend to the examples we show the learners.

Recently on my routine walk along Ridge St., I came upon this puzzle piece. It reminded me of my concern about avoiding making much of any single observation.

Context: I used to hope that I could teach kids with disabilities to become proficient with assembling jigsaw puzzles. I encouraged them to employ a hierarchical system in which they would first

• Sort for edge pieces (the one shown does look like an edge);

• Then sort for consistent shapes (this particular one’s an edge with two head adjacent to the side and two legs opposite the side; there are many others);

• Then sort for color and lines across the pieces;

• As a last resort, go look at the picture on the box, but only briefly.

As they found edge pieces (easy peasy), they could begin to assemble the frame of the puzzle. Success! With the frame coming together, they could begin to work on other areas. They might say, “Oh, there’s a bridge across the center and it has lights! Where are the sorted pieces that might fit that bridge?”

Once they had the frame and the sorts of pieces by shape and color, they could start looking for pieces that would fit particular spots. “Oh, look, the piece that goes here has to have two adjacent knobs and be this color...hmmm, where is that in my matrix...Here’s a candidate...nope...here’s another...BINGO!”

Now, I’m not sure I’ve explained this thoroughly enough. I should make a video, right? One of the features of that video would be puzzlers’ remembering to put the pieces back in the hierarchy...not just dropping them any old place.

But, an important point is that the kids got to practice approaching a complex task systematically.

• What if they lost a toy while walking across a vacant lot? What should be their strategy to search for that lost toy.

• What if a teacher said, “I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 1000?” What yes-no questions should they ask?

• Suppose they have to solve one of those puzzles where someone lives in big house, has a blue car, and eats fish; someone else lives in a small house, eats meat, and has a dog; someone else lives in a tepee with a goat and eats shoots and leaves...? What should be their strategy.

Well, here’s my thing: I don’t think educators should simply put kids in those situations and hope that they will invent the strategies. Educators should identify lots of those situations and show—explicitly—how to solve them...then gradually provide less guidance and find joy in their students’ successes.

Okay. I hope this note helps start your week with a great perspective on special education today.

Share

JohnL

SET Editor guy

Charlottesville

SET should not be confused with a product with a product that uses the same name and is published by the Council for Exceptional Children. SET predated CEC’s publication by decades. Despite my appreciation for CEC, this product is not designed to promote that publication.