Tag Archives: educational policy and politics

Department of Education Will Continue to Spend More Than $1 Million Per Month to Protect DeVos

(Other than to wonder why a Secretary of Education needs this level of protection, there’s really nothing to add to this post from Diane Ravitch’s Blog)

Diane Ravitch's blog

Politico reports that the Department of Education will renew the agreement with the U.S. Marshalls Service to protect Secretary Betsy DeVos, which cost nearly $8 million for six months. This occurs at a time when DeVos has enthusiastically endorsed budget cuts of billions to the Department’s programs. One program that she agreed to cut is a $10 million subsidy to the Special Olympics. Should the Dartment pay for her security detail or for opportunities for students with disabilities to demonstrate their athletic accomplishments? She is a billionaire. Why doesn’t she pay for her own security or ask her brother Erik Prince to send over a detail of his mercenaries?

“DEVOS, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE TO RENEW SECURITY AGREEMENT: The U.S. Marshals Service and the Education Department plan to renew an agreement to continue providing protective services for Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a spokesman for the Marshals Service tells Pro Education’s Caitlin…

View original post 144 more words

On “Special Education”

(This is basically a rant I composed at the end of the 2015-2016 school year. I’ve been going through my overflowing drafts folder in an attempt to clean it out and find things I need. I’d planned, when I located this, to trash it. However, on rereading it, I believe it’s worth publishing.)

On Facebook I follow both the National Association of Special Education Teachers and Disability Scoop because they are both excellent sources of professional news, almost all of it research useful for pedagogical practice, for those of us who work with struggling and diverse learners. Disability Scoop posted a story on June 4 of this year on the outrage that ensued over  a brewery in Galt, California, near Sacramento, that its owners named “Special Ed’s.”

Personally and professionally, I avoid playing the outrage market. It is, by definition, volatile. It also, to risk extending this metaphor ad nauseam, tends to return high dividends of annoyance, self-righteousness, and stress, and at best modest dividends of intellectual snobbery. Outrage is the junk bond of public discourse.

So outrage, most of the time, gets us nowhere in discussions of important issues. I don’t mean to say that I have no problems with or objections to Special Ed’s. With marketing slogans like “tard-tested” and “take the short bus to special beer,” the owners of Special Ed’s arguable deserved every syllable of opprobrium and shame to which the public subjected them. Ridiculing the less fortunate, whatever their affliction, isn’t cute, and it is clearly bad business.

But the comeuppance that Special Ed’s earned notwithstanding, this whole story left me even more perplexed about a term I’ve always found troubling, even when I was a public school student myself: “special education.” In all the years I’ve worked with troubled kids and struggling learners, I’ve been ill-at-ease with the term. I’m not sure exactly why this is, but I suspect it is that special education–and I endeavor to be charitable here to the bureaucrats who contrived it–is functionally useless as a term of art. What it says, in my neither humble nor disinterested opinion, is that all students who struggle with learning are the same, i.e. “special.”

And here I divulge my prejudice against the word “special.” To me it is one of class of adjectives that the legendary New Yorker writer Joseph Mitchell, while still a journeyman writer with several New York City newspapers in the 1920s and 1930s, trenchantly called a “tinsel word.” My own instincts about English usage instruct me that “special” has a relatively narrow definition and range of use.

Yet it doesn’t. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 2003), the lexicon of choice for Mark’s Text Terminal, gives three definitions of the noun, and five for the adjective. At the top of the adjectives’ meanings in “distinguished by some unusual quality, esp. being in some way superior <our special blend>.”

If you work, or have worked, with “special education” students, and you have sought to divine their potential, chances are you’ve found something–a skill, a method of inquiry, an enthusiasm or obsession, or a way of thinking–that in these students, particularly when compared with their “general” (another revealingly problematic modifier, to be sure) education peers, appears superior. The special education population in schools is, then, by some measures, superior to the general education population.

So it may well be that I take issue with the inherently hierarchical view of our students we commit to when we embrace the opposition between “inferior” and “superior.” Perhaps this reflects my postmodern education and the Foucaultian problematic of binary oppositions. Over the years as I’ve watched troubled and struggling learners, I learned to appreciate that learning takes place along a continuum and is governed by a complex mixture of interest, ability, psychological states on a day-to-day basis, the previous night’s sleep, a child’s relationship with the adults in his or her life, as well as his or her siblings and peers, and willingness to take risks in an environment–the classroom–where struggle, failure and, consequently, alienation occur.

Considering all this, and to risk charge as one of the political correctniks who are destroying America, I believe that the term “special education” carries with it a negative connotation. Certainly the students I serve resent it, and associate it with being “retarded,” (a word that I, along with my fellow purveyors of political correctness would just as soon not hear used as a pejorative), and avoid the term like the plague. The fact is, and I expect that most teachers who work with struggling learners (i.e. “special education students”) have heard objections from their students to this term. Not because they don’t need support in school–but because they would prefer not to bear the stigma of requiring “special education” services.

Diagnostic terms in general tend to reduce human experience and are epistemologically troublesome. At the same time, diagnostic terms supply practitioners with convenient and mostly useful terms for understanding and dealing with complex mental phenomena. I don’t for a moment dispute the utility of diagnostic terms, whatever their epistemological frailties may be.

“Special education” taken as a diagnostic term is not particularly useful to practitioners because it reports so little about a students’ needs. (Aside: from time to time, I entertain the idea of pursuing national board certification in special education, and I have found it interesting that the second benchmark to on the road to this distinction is “Principles of IEP Development.” Infer what you like from that, but to my ears, this is a call to develop precise terms to deal with the learning issues with which our charges arrive at our classroom doors.) There are plenty of reasons to oppose this term, if none other than mitigate the sting of it to our students. However, any teacher who has worked with struggling learners knows all too well that a student who arrives in our classroom with emotional disturbance has different needs than a student who suffers a learning disability. “Special education” fails to do justice to complexities of our jobs, and in any case these kinds of things occur, like autism, along a spectrum–or a continuum if you like. It is preposterous to think that when a school psychologist identifies a student in need of “special education” services that he or she will need the same professional services as the previously or subsequently so-identified student. In other words, the term “special education” with its corrosive connotations in out students’ minds, is epistemologically useless; it beggars precision.

So it’s time to send “special education,” whether or not it is used as a modifier before “student” to the rubbish bin of history. There it can repose with similar misbegotten terms that front for bad ideas about classifying the human condition–for instance phrenology.

So I humbly submit for your consideration some alternative, albeit general, terms to replace “special education.” Once again, I do understand that I risk destroying the American polity with political correctness, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take. For starters, in terms of naming departments, I think “learning support” or “supported learning” as a compound modifier for “department” should replace “special education” posthaste. Some other general terms we might consider for use in our professional discipline might be “delayed processor,” “diverse processor,” “diverse learner,” “struggling learner,” “alienated learner,” “apathetic learner,” and “supported learner.” These are, as I say, general, and of course they are provisional. There would have to be some sort of consensus on adoption of new words to replace “special education.” These terms, I like to think, confer agency on out students in a way “special education” does not. Moreover, bullies, self-conscious struggling students, and brewery owners lose a term of ridicule,

Eventually, teachers working with struggling learners really ought to have something like the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which psychiatrists use for diagnostics–but perhaps more concise.

Back at Special Ed’s Brewery, this story concludes on a happy note. After meeting with with several struggling learners and their parents, the owners and proprietors of Special Ed’s, Edward and Cheryl Mason, came to understand why people found the name of their establishment offensive. Subsequently, they changed the name of Special Ed’s to River Rock Brewery. (Incidentally, these aren’t folks without a sense of humor: they arrived at that name because of the number of rocks thrown through the windows of their building in the wake of all this). If I find myself in Galt, California, in Sacramento County, I’ll be sure to stop by the River Rock Brewery for a pint, and I’ll tip my server handsomely.

 

The Education Bloggers Network

Mark’s Text Terminal is now part of  The Education Bloggers Network, about which I am particularly excited. What is the Education Bloggers Network? The Network was founded by Jonathan Pelto, who sent me this conspectus of its mission:

The Education Bloggers Network:

The Education Bloggers Network is an informal confederation of more than 230 bloggers who are dedicated to supporting public education, pushing back the corporate education reform industry and their agenda, while ensuring that the voices of parents, teachers and other educators are part of the national, state and local debate about education policy.

While many members of the Network have their own blogs sites, some write commentary pieces for national, regional and local newspapers while others use their Facebook or other social media platforms to write about education issues.

Like the Committees of Correspondence leading up to America’s War for Independence, education bloggers work alone, in groups and as a collective to educate, persuade and mobilize parents, teachers, education advocates and citizens to stand up and speak out against those who seek to undermine public education, privatize public schools and turn classrooms into little more than Common Core testing factories.

The Education Bloggers Network was developed in conjunction with the publication and roll-out of Diane Ravitch’s best-selling book, “Reign of Error.”    It was founded and is managed by Jonathan Pelto, an education advocate, former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, communications strategist and education blogger. 

The Education Bloggers Network has become a vibrant community of advocacy journalists, investigative bloggers and public education activists working to make sure that citizens have accurate and timely information about public education issues at the local, state and federal level.

I thank Jonathan Pelto for extending an invitation to join this distinguished group of scholars, educators, journalists, writers and activists.

Lubienskis: Why is Betsy DeVos Pushing Vouchers When Research Shows They Don’t Work?

(Betsy DeVos is an ideologue whose views on education are seriously at odds with reality. Here’s another excellent post from Diane Ravitch’s Blog exposing Secretary DeVos’s penchant for pursuing failed policies.)

Diane Ravitch's blog

Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Lubienski are among the nation’s leading researchers on the subject of school choice. Their book, “The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools” is must reading. Christopher Lubienski is professor of education policy at Indiana University. Sarah Theule Lubienski is a professor of mathematics education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

They can’t understand why Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration are pushing vouchers when evidence shows that they actually harm children.

This article appears in Education Week.

“For years, voucher advocates have pointed to a series of more than a dozen reports—usually funded or conducted by voucher proponents—that used randomized approaches, similar to those used in medical research, to isolate the effects of vouchers on treatment groups in citywide programs.

“While other researchers have questioned those reports over the last decade and a half, voucher advocates have claimed that these “

View original post 850 more words

DeVos Invites Anti-LGBT Groups to Join Father’s Day Event in D.C.

(I’m not sure what more I could do to make this grim news grimmer; Betsy DeVos is a right-wing zealot who understands very little about education, and even less about diversity and strength.)

Diane Ravitch's blog

The DeVos family foundations have long supported (even helped to found) anti-gay groups. Betsy DeVos’s mother was one of the major contributors to Prop 8 in California, which declared gay marriage illegal. Her family members are on the boards of Focus on the Family and Family Research Council. At her confirmation hearings, DeVos was asked about her connections to these anti-LGBT organizations, and of course she feigned innocence. When asked about her being listed as a member of the board of her mother’s foundation, which is rabidly anti-gay, she claimed she was not on the board. When asked why her name was listed as an officer of that board, she said it was a clerical error. The same clerical error occurred over fourteen years, even though the IRS returns were audited.

The National Parent Teacher Association withdrew from the conference.

A personal note: my younger son is gay. He and…

View original post 343 more words

DeVos Shows What Vouchers are About

(If you really want to understand Betsy DeVos and her priorities, I don’t think you need look much further than this post from Diane Ravitch’s Blog)

Diane Ravitch's blog

When she was questioned by Congress, Betsy DeVos let the cat out of the bag about vouchers.

The U.S. Department of Education will hand out money for vouchers and will not enforce civil rights laws.

“She lifted the curtain on school vouchers and made clear exactly what this system of using taxpayer funds to pay for private and religious schools is.

“It’s a way for some parents, particularly bigots, to get taxpayers to subsidize their attempts to evade or break the law.

“The revelation came during DeVos’s testimony before Congress about President Donald Trump’s proposed new federal budget and that budget’s effect on education.

“DeVos found herself questioned by U.S. Rep. Katharine Clark, D-Massachusetts. Clark inquired about Lighthouse Christian Academy, a voucher school here in Indiana — Bloomington, in fact — that boasts that it will deny admission to students who might be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The school…

View original post 282 more words

Neil Postman on Print Culture and the Development of Intellect

“…In his books The Disappearance of Childhood (1982) and Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), Postman makes the case that as society moves away from print culture–wherein knowledge is amassed in stages, sequentially, forcing greater levels of rigor, maturity, and comprehension upon the reader–and toward mass media, we begin to lose the mechanism for civic life. Indeed, Postman contends that greater literacy is inextricably linked with the core defining traits of adult cognition and discourse: ‘A child evolves toward adulthood by acquiring the sort of intellect we expect of a good reader: a vigorous sense of individuality, the capacity to think logically and sequentially, the capacity to distance oneself from symbols, the capacity to manipulate high orders of abstraction, the capacity to defer gratification,'”

Excerpted from: Natasha Vargas-Cooper. “Childhood’s End: Which Disney Princess Is Neil Postman?” The Baffler No. 35 (Summer 2017)