Teach Effectively!

A consultant’s report about New York City’s efforts to correct problems in special education apparently omits examination of whether students receive effective teaching, according to a story by David Herzenhorn in the New York Times. Mr. Herzenhorn reported that the consultants, led by Thomas Hehir (former Director of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation in the U.S. Department of Education during the Clinton administration), were charged with focusing on evaluation and placement, so it may be that the omission is the responsibility of those who requested the review, not the consultants.

Here’s Mr. Herzenhorn’s lead:

A study of New York City’s special education system by a team of independent experts has found that the Bloomberg administration “is moving special education in positive directions.”

But the report also identified a litany of concerns including mismanagement and confusion about staff responsibilities, insufficient collection of data, inadequate evaluation and referral practices, over-reliance on segregated classes and generally poor handling of hearings where parents are allowed to present complaints.

I see no mention of instruction in the catalog of concerns. Perhaps Mr. Herzenhorn omitted it. Perhaps the consultants did not consider it. Perhaps the people requesting the review skipped it. Regardless of who is responsible, it is a substantial oversight.

Failure to attend to and improve instruction creates or exacerbates several of the problems in Mr. Herzenhorn’s litany. Given effective instruction in general education settings, there would be less concern about evalution and referral practices, because there would probably be fewer referrals, lower probabilities of false positive outcomes from referrals (i.e., fewer instructional causalties looking like they have Learning Disabilities). Given effective teaching in special education settings, there would probably be fewer concerns about whether special education is an undesirable aspect of education; the intensity and focus of effective instruction for students with disabilities would make clear the need for smaller groups, additional personnel, special equipment and materials, and other features of segregated settings.

Side note: I wonder what data about handling of hearings would show regarding the nature of parents’ complaints. About what were parents complaining? Segregated placement? Access to special education? What if many of the complaints were from parents seeking special education services, but the reviewers’ approach presumed that keeping children from getting special education services was desirable?

Link to Mr. Herzenhorn’s story (free registration may be required).