Miriam Freedman

3.2.10 - Michael F. Shaughnessy - Probably not, but my little flipbook doesn’t focus on those students. It focuses on the 70-80% of students who have mild to moderate disabilities. Even there, most people have little idea about the many services schools provide these days

An Interview with Miriam Freedman: Fixing Special Education-12 Steps to Transform a  Broken System

Michael F. Shaughnessy

Eastern New Mexico University

Portales, New Mexico

1. You have just published a little flipbook that “balances the tale of special education’s success with 12 steps to transform it for the 21st century”. What has been the overall response to the book? 

Thanks for asking. It’s been amazing.  Not only is the book selling across the country, but various groups and states are scheduling meetings to reconsider special education: honoring what’s right and fixing what’s wrong—using this little flipbook as a discussion starter!  That’s exactly what I’d hoped for in writing it. Several have invited me to speak, and I’m doing so in Texas, California, and Massachusetts, my home state.  Hopefully, we’ll have lots of open discussions and transform our broken system.

Another marker is your www.EducationNews.org Commentary about the book, published before New Year. That Commentary has been the ‘Most Commented’ ever since! 

I believe that this flipbook and the discussion it’s inspiring have given voice to many folks who have been silent—making it OK to face our challenges honestly. I like to think that this little flipbook is full of big ideas.

2. Do you think the general public understands the issues involved in special education- by that I mean children with severe and profound autism, mental retardation, visual and hearing impairments?

Probably not, but my little flipbook doesn’t focus on those students. It focuses on the 70-80% of students who have mild to moderate disabilities.  Even there, most people have little idea about the many services schools provide these days—specialized instruction, therapies, special transportation, personal aides, special classes, private placements, equipment, etc. Most people far underestimate the costs and complexities involved. 

3. Do you think the average parent understands what we call “special education?”

Probably not, but since I don’t poll parents, I don’t really know.  By experience, what I find troubling is that besides the lack of knowledge mentioned above, many parents of children who are eligible for special education also do not understand the system. 

4. Why this confusion and lack of knowledge? In large part, I’d say, because special education has become far too complicated, convoluted, and confusing.  Who can figure it out? 

Has “special education“ gotten a bum rap? Or are parents just filled with unrealistic expectations?

A ‘bum rap?’ Those are not words I’d use. About unrealistic expectations, the law itself may set parents up for disappointment. Recall that President Ford warned—back in 1975—that it promised more than it can deliver.  The law’s promise is rather basic: that a student will receive an educational benefit and will progress. It does not promise that a student will make ‘maximum’ progress, that the disability will be ‘fixed,’  ‘cured,’ or, here’s a term I just heard, ‘resolved.’ While parents may want what’s ‘best’ for their child, the law has lesser goals—to provide what’s ‘appropriate.’ Such unrealistic expectations are unfair to everyone and set up schools and parents for some nasty disputes.   I guess that’s called a ‘bum rap.’

5. One of your suggestions is to CHANGE the path we are on and “educate all students” without labels. But don’t professionals such as school psychologists, occupational and physical therapists, speech language pathologists, and behavior therapists need to be able to communicate about certain conditions?

Again, my little flipbook and these comments do NOT focus on students with profound and severe disabilities. For the vast numbers of students with SLD (about 50% of all students with disabilities!), I question the need for expensive and extensive diagnoses.  Instead of ever more detailed diagnostic reports, let’s focus our scarce public resources on improving teaching for all students, including students with disabilities, through ‘best practices,’ diagnostic teaching, targeted instruction, meaningful standards and accountability, and the response to intervention (RtI) model, especially in the early grades.  Let’s focus on teaching all students how to read, write and do math first. Let’s use the psychologists and therapists you mention as resources for educators, when needed, to work with them to improve learning.  One school psychologist quoted in my book got it right—students should go to school to get an education, not a diagnosis.   

6. When President Ford signed the Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, he cautioned against “promising more than the law can deliver”. Now, is this the way our government does business and our senators and congressmen? Do they continually enact legislation that promises more than the law can deliver?

Interesting. I have wondered about that. This law provides a cautionary tale.  For me, the sad part of President Ford’s signing statement was this, “Fortunately, since the provisions of this bill will not become fully effective until fiscal year 1978, there is time to revise the legislation and come up with a program that is effective and realistic.”

That never happened. The law was not revised. By 1978, President Ford was out of office. Times changed. Congress moved on. And we have been stuck with the procedures and due process since then—and it’s gotten more acrimonious and complex.

The caution?  If anyone tells you it’s OK for Congress to pass bills with flaws that it can later fix, be very skeptical.  Mother was right: ‘Do it right the first time!’ That later time may never come.

7. You advocate, “ending reliance on the medical model“ in your book. But what about those children who do have asthma, diabetes, benign congenital hypotonia and other true medical problems.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I used the term, ‘medical model’ to describe the law’s gatekeeper model, whereby a student needs a label in order to be eligible for specific individualized services.  The students your question deals with are those who have medical conditions that impede or compromise their ability to attend and participate in school. The gatekeeper model is not apt for these students, as schools may need to provide services or accommodations so they can attend school and participate. For these children, schools need medical diagnoses and procedures so school nurses, teachers, parents, and doctors can work together to help children access their education. This is where, for many students, individualized health plans (IHPs) and/or Section 504 plans may come in.

8. In your book, you indicate that “parents need to parent.” While I agree, we both know there are single parent families, dysfunctional families and families that are confronted with challenges beyond the scope of their skills and abilities- such as children who are both deaf and blind and those with severe autism or mental retardation. Who teaches these parents the parenting skills they need?

So glad you asked. Of course, parents of students with disabilities need support. And some, including those you mention, undoubtedly may need more than others. However, my focus is on how the special education law skews the parents’ role, especially for parents of students who have less severe disabilities. Nowhere does the law deal with what parents can and should do to help their children learn. Instead, the law tells parents how to be active consumers—to get information, confront school personnel, demand services, and file complaints if they disagree with school actions. Instead, our national policy should be geared to help parents and teachers partner for better learning for all, broaden the parents’ role, and change the incentives. Of course, while the law cannot force parents, we can transform its incentive systems and our government’s bully pulpit can go a long way forward, on a far more constructive path.

If our First Lady can launch a far-reaching effort to tackle obesity, called “Let’s Move,” surely we can launch a far-reaching effort to help parents, teachers, and students meet their responsibilities. How about, “Let’s Learn Together.”

9. Simple question, that may be perplexing to answer, but I will ask anyway. In your opinion, in 2010, what should be an appropriate class size—10, 20, 25, 30, 35? And how should this be determined?

It may be a simple question, but not in my area of expertise.  For students with disabilities, class size is currently based on an individualized determination of what the student needs in order to receive an educational benefit. One size does not fit all.

10. As an attorney, you practice law. Psychologists and educators deal with learning differences and here I specify, learning disabilities. How would you define specific learning disabilities (SLD) or would you drop the entire label altogether?

Great question!  After all these years, the SLD label remains imprecise and subject to subjective vagaries from diagnostician to diagnostician and community to community. Sometimes, it reflects the type of teaching the student had, more than the student himself. Sometimes, it’s a reflection of the socio economics of the student’s community. Sometimes, it’s based on flawed research. We see that with the current questioning of a bedrock concept in special education—‘learning styles.’ 

Too often the gatekeeper model interferes with educators’ ability to help struggling learners.  Teachers should be free to work with all students, use universal design principles, high standards and expectations, differentiated instruction, researched methodologies, etc—without fear of lawsuits or bureaucratic entanglements. The better regular education is, the less special education we need. That’s what we should push for.

The SLD label grew out of political action by parents and other stakeholders. At this crossroad, we need to ask that very basic question: is it working? If the label promotes learning—keep it. If it interferes, drop it. It may indeed be the time to drop the label. People of good will got us here; people of good will can move us forward.

11) What have I neglected to ask about your book?

You’ve done a great job with thoughtful questions. But, if I may, I’d like to go back to the big picture—the reasons for discontent with our current system and why I wrote this book.  The big picture is that this 1975 law—worked! It succeeded. We solved the access issues of the last century.  Now, all children with disabilities have the opportunity for education. No one is excluded. Yet, the law did not change. Instead, it became ever more complex and adversarial, still focused on inputs, procedures, and due process. As a result, our country built huge bureaucracies at federal, state, and local levels that foster an adversarial climate between parents and schools. That has to stop. Special education needs to join the 21^st century—become outcome driven through research-based instruction. It needs to put educators, not lawyers or judges, in control.  Until we take the courage to transform the broken system, we’ll just keep tinkering at the edges and not focusing on improved teaching and learning—a most unsatisfying exercise.

Of course, there’s always more to explore and learn, but for now, I’d urge your readers to open the discussion about what works and what does not in their communities. The positive reactions to my little flipbook and discussions around the country are encouraging. Let’s move to transform this broken system. I hope readers visit my website and blog at www.schoollawpro.com and www.schoollawpro.com/schoollawblog.htm

and www.parkplacepubs.com, to learn more about my books, writing, and speaking.