Welcome to this latest newsletter for Special Education Today. The contents will be familiar to those have read previous issues: First, an update about the health of SET, followed by appreciation for readers, then the current contents, and finally some personal reflections.

First, though, I have to offer an apology. Some of you may have received a duplicate message from SET last week. I only sent the newsletter, the mid-week post, and a Friday post; if you got four (or more), the extra one(s) was caused by a software error. Still, I’m sorry if you thought that I was abusing you by sending lots of messages. The Substack folx explained it thusly in a mea culpa:

We have found and fixed two separate technical issues, one on April 8 and another on April 9, that resulted in some posts being sent twice to subscribers. We truly apologize for any frustration this situation has caused. We will be conducting an extensive investigation over the coming week to make sure that this does not happen again. Thanks for understanding and again, we are sorry.

Status update

SET grew a bit last week. We lost one subscriber but we gained nine. Of course, these are all free subscribers (more on that in a future note). Thanks for continuing to share the word! Forward. Tweet. Share. Tell friends and family!

Flashes of the electrons

SET pals who interacted with the magazine last week get a cudo here:

• Thanks to Michael K., Lysandra C., Janet V., Lorraine S., Jane B., Clayton K., Virginia W., Tina C., Jesse F., Larry M., Jean C., Luann D., Angelique W., Lynn N., Shu-Fei T., all of whom dropped a like on one of more posts this past week. It’s great that you find them worth “liking” and I appreciate the feedback.

• Ed M., Jesse F., John R., Sarah P., Luann D., Sheldon H., Lorraine S., Jane B., Larry M., Mike N. were the leaders on the “comments board.” At least once there was a real discussion there! Yay!

• Top sharers for SET in the last seven days include Angelique W., Ed M., and Jane B. Way to click that button!

• There lots of visitors last week, so I’ll list those who dropped by more than four times: Tina C., jrv010, Angelique W., John R., Clayton K., Sheldon H., Lorraine S., and Jesse F. Thanks for visiting! Come on by anytime.

Thanks to y’all who have followed @speciadedtoday (and me @JohnWillsLloyd). Twitter’s a great way to keep up with what’s happening with SET. As I get a chance, I’ll push notices to followers for that TW account. Help SET by pushing content even when I don’t. Those who follow that account can help promote new content.

Share

The Table of Contents for This Week

Remember, please, that this newsletter “a lagging indicator.” I only post it on Mondays, and it covers only posts from the previous week. I post messages to the Web site multiple times during the week. Go there frequently (as do those folks whom I just mentioned and others who stop by up to four times a week), so you can keep up with the latest.

The posts from the previous week:

1. Inclusion may not always be good: Could the “normal” environment be a problem?

2. Go happily, Gary Sasso; you did good: Let us remember a giant

3. Editorial: Does early identification focus on the wrong variables?: What’s the matter with screening for dyslexia?

4. Friday photos: #19—Sarah Powell!: How much can one person get done?

5. Speducators in their own words—1: What James M. Kauffman has to say: What are Professor Kauffman’s answers to some questions?

Comments

As we head into the last weeks of the school year, I’m wondering how the eligibility processes used by schools to determine whether a child qualifies for special education are going. Given the consequences of the pandemic for students, might schools being receiving unusually high numbers of requests for evaluations? Are teachers writing more referrals? Are parents requesting more assessments? Has there been a higher proportion of requests for social-behavioral evaluations?

How about teachers? We’ve long known about a shortage of qualified teachers in special education, and I suspect that is still true. But, might there be an unusually high number of teachers not planning to return next year? Are teachers not only bothered by having to teach during COVID, but also by the negative press that has been common in the last year, both the negative discussions of education under COVID and the negative commentary regarding sex education curricula and materials?

There’s a lot going on, a lot about which to wonderer. Let’s add to that with a photo of some tiny flowers from Pat’s yard.

Anyway, as always, don’t just care about our kids, but because we need you to around to advocate for them, I recommend that we (a) wear those seatbelts! (b) get vaccinated and boosted and keep safe social distance, wash our hands, and use masks! and (c) please teach your children well.

JohnL
SET Editor guy
Charlottesville

SET should not be confused with a product with 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 designed to represent that organization.