4 common sense proposals for special education reform
Hello again. My piece has garnered many, many comments, including some excellent discussion starters. That was my hope–to get special education reform on the front burner of education reform. Let’s hope that’s happening. Here’s a beginning…I’ll be on a Los Angeles public radio station this morning, as a result. So, let’s see how the conversation evolves. Here’s the link again in case you wish to revisit. Onward and upward!
Here’s another thought provoking piece… in that Atlantic series, America the Fixable. Enjoy!
Let’s hope this helps to move the conversation forward.
Interestingly, a statistic that caught my eye recently is this: In Finland by the age of 16, 60% of students have had “special education.” By which Finland means, focused attention on the elements of learning basic reading, writing and math. Perhaps the Finns and this author are on to something important. A worthy read.
Brainstorming–a popular method for teaching writing–doesn’t really work. See this fascinating piece in the New Yorker
“Groupthink–the Brainstorming Myth”
It got me thinking about other popular teaching myths. One of them, labeling learners as V or A or K (VAK)–visual, aural, or kinesthetic learners–has also been debunked. Yet it remains popular, especially in special education.
Why is it that unproven or disproven methods continue to be popular? Why? And why do we stay with them even when they are not effective? Is it that these ‘methods’ are so intuitive that they must be true and must work! Is it like the old saying–“My mind’s made up. don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Greetings to my readers and fellow reformers,
Sorry I have been out of touch–and did not have a guest blogger. My reason? I finally made it to Morocco, the land very high on my bucket list. I was born in the middle east and wanted to feel that part of the world again. Morocco is an amazing combination of France/Spain, the middle east, and Africa. The trip was wonderful trip–about 12 days! I loved the colors, spices, fabrics, rugs, camels, donkeys, dry satiny air, makeup colored sand, tagines, friendly people, souks, medinas, cacti, oleander, bougainvelia, new friendships and lots of time for reflection. We visited one school and we saw children leaving several schools during the day for lunch and at the end of the day, many in Moslem garb.
We were a small group of 8–all with our journaling books that we wrote in pretty much every day and drew little pictures of our trip. Looking back through that journal book brings back memories. I have not even unpacked the photos.
Soon–we’ll get back to our discussion of education issues–especially special ed.
I read Philip Howard’s thoughtful piece in The Atlantic. Right on! And what a perfect title.
I was not surprised (and glad) to see his opening salvo was about special education–quoting facts and figures also found in my book, Fixing Special Education and my other writings. Special education is indeed an amazing example of a well-intended system that has spun out of control.
Mr. Howard (Philip, if I may) writes that, rather than ‘deregulation,’ we need a spring cleaning. Throw out what’s not working. We can’t just keep piling on new laws and new great ideas. Deregulation won’t get at it–as we need to start with purpose and reboot for the 21st century.
As you’ll see in my upcoming law review piece about fixing special education, I suggest that we should even consider the idea of ending the entitlement program. It succeeded in its mission–providing access for schooling to all students with disabilities. But thereafter, as it’s an open ended law, it morphed into all sorts of unintended consequences.
As Philip writes–we need to keep the purpose (education for all), but substitute a targeted sensible program for the 21st century (not retrofit this old 20th century law). Appointing a commission to do so is a good idea–also discussed in my upcoming piece.
It looks like many stars are getting aligned… Many of us know that the law is broken and needs to be fixed.
And please stay tuned for that article. I’ll provide the link when it’s out.
Thank you, Philip, for pushing all of us and keeping the ball going on these important issues. So glad you’ll have a running series at The Atlantic.com!
James Q. Wilson died last week. I did not read his work while he lived, but did read this article about his ‘broken windows’ theory for cities. If there’s a broken window and no one fixes it, it means that no one cares and we can go around smashing more windows. If some one fixes it, then we do care–and the city is perceived to be a safer and better place. Voila! Apparently Mayor Guliani used this theory in NYC — and indeed, the city became a safer place–a destination city for tourists once again. While some may argue with the connection between what happened in NYC and Mr. Wilson–to me, it makes sense.
And now to our schools. Have we allowed too many broken windows? I think we have. We have tolerated all sorts of realities that impede learning–children unprepared for school, broken or dirty facilities, teachers unprepared for teaching, bureaucratic interference and strangulation by regulation, parents unprepared to support the teachers and students–all policies that interfere with the work of the school–teaching and learning. We have tolerated bad behaviors and bad policies for too long…
I like the metaphor–let’s fix those windows. And it seems to me, that once we really start to do it–in any of the above examples–the ripple effect on our schools should be felt. It’ll show that we really do care about children and the future of our country.
It’s a way forward. Thank you, Mr. James Q. Wilson. I wonder what the Q stands for!
How should we fix this quandary? As I see it, schools should educate according to best practices–not slogans or notions of rights. The LRE (least restrictive environment) requirement of the special education law is a legal–not pedagogical- one. It’s driven by notions of rights, not results for students. Thus, the quandary. We should revisit that!
At the very least in the next reauthorization, the LRE should be defined as the LRAE–least restrictive appropriate enviroment where this student –and her/his classmates–can learn the most. Good teaching practices should drive placements.
As a lawyer, I read with great interest news of an upcoming book, Failing Law Schools by Brian Tamanaha. As well, here’s a New York Times blog about it.
The argument is that there are too many new lawyers of the wrong type and, yet, not enough lawyers to serve all people. A quandary. Law schools should differentiate for different types of students and future clients: some research based schools for academics and high end clients and some practice oriented schools for the general public (now, reportedly, underserved). One size does not fit all.
This book will raise discussion about an important issue. Check it out!
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/the-bad-news-law-schools/#
Recent Comments