Being conscious and open to the possibilities of each person, to the potential of each person is often difficult. Our previous experience and exposure often dictates the amount of patience, understanding and willingness to remain open we allow ourselves to provide for others. It's easy to question our own kindness and flexibility when there is no change in how others respond to it.
So...Where do we draw the line? When do we begin to close off? How do we justify our purpose in doing so? What do we hope the result will be to the decisions we make? I believe that we must be true to our belief in others, to the greater goals of schooling. THIS is our purpose. This is what I read in pieces from leaders like Tom Altepeter (@TomAltepeter), George Couros (@gcouros), Harold Shaw (@hshawjr), Diane Lauer (@MrsLauer), and so many others.
As a special educator I try to reflect and reassess the way in which I interact with different students, at different times, and in different environments. A seminal article in the special education literature by Doug and Lynn Fuchs (1997) asked the question many still discuss today. What’s Special About Special Education?
The uncertainty in quality and effectiveness of special education programming has lead us to where we are today. What does identification do to improve the outcomes of those who are identified? Once a student is identified with a disability, what happens next? How does Placement and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) improve an individual’s education?
I believe that it is important to place these questions within a context relevant to our current struggles within education as a whole. Special education services should not be a “catch-all” solution for students who struggle. Our school programs cannot be expected to function in isolation. An integrated framework must be adopted in order to meet the contemporary needs of students.
General educators must adapt and modify practices. Special educators must do the same. The current emphasis in special education service delivery is on unified and integrated service programming and delivery. However, if the system does not function in concert, student outcomes will not change.
In order to change outcomes for students with and without disabilities educational reformers have been forced to critically analyze measures of accountability to determine their effectiveness and validity. In conjunction with the use of Response to Intervention (RtI) for identification, integrated programs must be compelled to implement primary, and proactive programmatic opportunities that consider risk at an individual level and emphasize resiliency development.
Combining these efforts with the conceptual belief in all students’ ability to succeed can address the needs of those students who are perceived negatively but aren’t given the chance or opportunity to be successful because the system neglects (willfully or unintentionally) their needs, desires, goals and dreams.
Before we refer students for special education identification, we owe it to ourselves, to our students, to find ways to expand the capacity of our teams, our schools, and our districts, by remembering that special education is not always the answer.
True opportunity for individual student successes and increased positive outcomes for students with and without disability will come from a combination of legislation, policy and practice; none of these can influence change in isolation.
It is my duty as an educator, not a special educator, to expand my abilities, my influence, and my knowledge, to collaborate and share effective practices and to learn from my successes and my failures.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). What’s special about special education? In D. Podell (Ed.), Perspectives: Educating exceptional learners (pp. 39-48). Boulder, CO: Coursewise Publishing
