Talk:Special education in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 13 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eheri1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 June 2020 and 2 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jweed1214.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmlisi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Egolladay.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The
The following information box is a proposal for how to track what needs to be done to ths article. Feedback welcome. Best, Rosmoran 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (todo list was empty) –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was originally part of the general article Special Education. I moved it here to its own page as it was a very detailed and interesting piece of work but out of place in a general article. --Brideshead 10:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to remember to use person-first language when talking about people with disabilities, not disabled people. Thanks! Hawkeyeatc 23:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All disabilities are not listed in this article. The article lists only the “known” disabilities but limits to those that may not be as common or heard of. Disabilities can have a range and can be combined. There is no limit to what we should consider to be a disability. Everyone is different and disabilities effect people in different ways. Some people also have different levels of disabilities within their disability. We should not categorize people into specific groups.
 * ~ Mjmakepeace (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Integration with related topics
Hi, There are a number of existing articles related to IDEA and special education including Individualized Education Program, Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and Least Restrictive Environment. There is certainly more than enough information to fill many articles, so there would be little to gain by combining any of the topics.

However, the topics are all very closely inter-related and have more and more content duplicated among them. I'm thinking that it would be good to create a "set" or "series" of articles, using Summary style, eliminate the unecessary redundancy by relying on (and linking to) detailed content in other articles. Adding a common "navigation" box to all pages could tie all of the articles in the series together.

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Special Education in the United States (parent article)
Article Series 1: Special education statutes and regulations
 * Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
 * Individualized Education Program
 * Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
 * Least Restrictive Environment
 * (I'm sure there are more topics that will need articles of their own)

The above information is what I'm particularly focused on right now because there is quite a lot of redundancy most of which really should be eliminated. However, there are other article "sets" that should also fit into the special education umbrella, such as:

Article series 2: Disabilities covered by special education / IDEA
 * Cognitive disabliity
 * Learning disabilty
 * Response to intervention
 * Lots of other related topics that I haven't thought of

Of course, all of the articles would also stand on their own, and some of them would probably also be closely tied to other subject areas.

Thoughts?

Best, Rosmoran 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one has objected (or even replied), I have begun to implement the Summary style to longer sections, especially where there are already articles on the topic (such as Individualized Education Plan, etc).


 * Now I'm beginning to add tasks to top of this page so folks can see what I think the next steps should be.


 * Feedback, discussion, objections, and direct participation are all welcome!

Best, Rosmoran 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there needs to be a page dedicated to laying out the IEP (Individualized Education Plan). IEP's are distributed to all students who require some assistance in their learning journey. This could be for student that are fully functioning and those that are not.
 * The IEP plans are individualized to the student and created by the school. This plan is laid out and reviewed each year to be sure that the student is meeting their education goal. The FAPE (Free and Public Education) states that every student is entitled to an education that is appropriate. Without this system in place, the student would not be able to succeed and learn in school.
 * ~ Mjmakepeace (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Added some history and citations
It seems to me that this article is becoming more and more about IDEA, that is, the legal aspects of special education, and less about special education itself.

It seems pretty clear that much of the info in this article really belongs in the IDEA article, but I'm not sure what kind of information *ought* to be included about how the US handles special education.

Certainly the historical aspects of 'warehousing" (though we wouldn't want to use such a POV term), inclusive education movement and its pros and cons. What else?

Ideas? Best, Rosmoran 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article would probably read a lot better if it delved more into the genesis of special education as a whole, then passed the administrata of IDEA over to that article instead of dealing with it here.


 * It also should be noted that teachers, as well as parents, can initiate the referral process.RyanGrant 06:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Added legal citations and information from major cases
In the last couple of weeks, I've been trying to insert more detail, more citations, and information from the original sources, such as regulations, authoritative federal cases and so on. I've repaired some broken links. I added a section on special education finance. I've added links to some of the key statutes and regulations. I've added a section explaining the cooperative federalism structure of US special education law. I've made a few corresponding revisions as well to LRE and FAPE sections. If you see errors, by all means fix em.

What is missing, I think, is a sense of the major current policy issues that are facing special education. The relationship to NCLB. The emerging financial challenges to public schools arising from an increasing number of students who don't speak English and a rising child poverty rate, just at the time that States are cutting back support for regular and special education. One needs a sense of the challenges faced by local schools when the state and federal governments impose increasing requirements while cutting state funding support. Jvonkorff (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

child abuse
this section needs help. I changed the fact it is reported as "widespread" because that is conjecture. If it isn't documented, it can't be written in the article as definite. Parents often view this site as a primary source fo information and this whole artilce needs and overhaul. Another point, the reference ofr this section on child abuse is a web site that is actually a PAC, not what I would call verfiable...

Jim Steele (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a rather marginal source. I'm pleased that the anon editor has finally quit pasting in a copy of the press release directly and managed to re-write it in his/her own words.  But it's still a remarkably limited perspective.
 * To give one example, the press release decries taping a child's mouth shut. This could be done abusively; however, it could be done non-abusively as well.  I once had a group of gifted-and-talented 12 year olds absolutely beg for the "privilege" of putting a piece of Scotch tape on their mouths during a seatwork assignment.  I doubt that anyone seeing this scene would have considered it "child abuse", despite clear signs of tape over the kids' mouths.
 * Additionally, I'm not convinced that the statistics are specific to students with disabilities. While they're group that is most likely to require various forms of restraint purely for safety purposes, non-disabled students are restrained in non-trivial numbers as well -- as any police officer assigned to an urban high school can attest.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of me wants to eliminate this section until we have better sources. It gives people the wrong impression of what restraint is. Anyone who has worked in special, gifted or any type of education that fulfills the criteria of a district allocating more resources to it knows that it is controversial by its nature. The only "abuse" I read out of that was hearsay, accounts from parents and staff and perhaps they were reporting what happened but "good" statistics on this aren't easy to find. Because as you know restraint is for the best of some students sometimes. What if they are having a seizure? What if the student with an emotional disability is attacking a teacher? And, yes, I would bet that a layperson would have accused you with abuse if they saw tape on the mouths of those students. I have worked with gifted students as well and am aware of their vigilance. If they heard of any rumors of abuse then facts don't matter. Neither does circumstance, which brings up your last point. So I vote to ax this child abuse section until we find something better than a "marginal" source for such a combustive topic.

Jim Steele (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing it works for me. I suggest an edit summary that indicates the need for really top-notch sources.
 * Like you, I have no problem with including any solid facts, but "scary numbers" in a press release from an advocacy group aren't sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. You know, if there is to be a section on something as serious as child abuse within an article as important as special education, then there should be something better than that press release. This "source" claims child abuse is widepread yet numbers are hard to count. Hmm. I've read that a couple of times and still did not understand the circumstance behind the taping of a students mouth shut. Purely sensationalist, ill-informative and toxic to the minds of laypeople who google special education and jump to conclusions. Good riddance.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's a significant problem, someone will be able to produce more serious sources. Wikipedia's definition of "worth including" is pretty much "whatever good sources talk about".  If there aren't any really good sources, then we shouldn't include it -- and if there are, we should include it, no matter what the political repercussions are.
 * For right now, I think we can wait for the appearance of better sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit
This article is pretty awful. It looks like it's been a long time since anyone gave it much attention (and that was probably by an education lawyer, given how that dominated the beginning). I've cleaned up the lead a bit with some very general information. Would anyone like to pick a section to fix up next? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start. I read "The purpose of federal special education funding is to maintain or improve the quality of special education services" and wonder why it is not mentioned that federal funding was mandated at 40% yet barely reaches 20% in many states. I think I'll work a bit on the mainstreaming article. The manifestation needs info too. Jim Steele (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, presumably because we don't have a non-questionable reliable source that confirms either the 40%, or the 20%, or the implication that the 40% is supposed to be measured by each state individually, instead of an overall average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised there's no mention of this either on the EHA or IDEA pages. It's written in the laws, it was an estimate and you can look at each states' budget, less than 20% of special ed costs are covered by the feds and often it's MUCH less than that. A short article describes how it came about if you are curious:http://www.specialednews.com/washwatch/washnews/IDEAfullfunding021100.html Jim Steele (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

History source
http://www.sgmdoc.com/litigation.htm has an interesting list of lawsuits, including those that established the pre-1975 exclusion of students with special needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate here?
section from article on Cherry Hill Public Schools:

Controversy
In April 2012, the parent of an autistic student released a video on Youtube"Teacher/Bully: How My Son Was Humiliated and Tormented by his Teacher and Aide", Stuart Chaifetz, video at YouTube, posted April 20, 2012 providing evidence that the student was the subject of emotional abuse at the hands of his teacher and aide at Horace Mann Elementary School, in the Cherry Hill school district.Horace Mann Elementary School website. The evidence was secured when the child's father, Stuart Chaifetz, wired his son before sending him to school. When Chaifetz listened to the audio recording, according to one news report, "Chaifetz says he caught his son's teachers gossiping, talking about alcohol and violently yelling at students. He took the audio to the Cherry Hill School District, where officials fired one of the teachers involved after hearing the tape. Chaifetz's son was relocated to a new school, where Chaifetz says he is doing well."NJ Father Records Teachers Bullying His Autistic Child, MyFoxPhilly.com"Verbal abuse of autistic student sparks calls for reform", Jim Walsh and Phil Dunn, Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reprinted at USA Today website, 29 April 2012 Chaifetz created a petition asking for legislation to allow the immediate firing of teachers who have bullied students. As of April 29, it had garnered over 149,000 signatures."To the New Jersey Legislature and Congress: Pass legislation so that teachers who bully children are immediately fired", petition at Change.org, access date 29 April 2012

Should this be here? maybe at the autism article? I think it may deserve its own article.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.126 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation section
''This is completely out of date; many states no longer even do this kind of evaluation, as the entire discrepancy model has been tossed out in favor of RTI. This article is literally misinformation.'' Comment made by User_talk:50.193.171.70 copied by  Lova Falk     talk   19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree, a lot of this is out of date. Many of the source will not open causing a reader not to be able to check the information.Samanthastone12 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

the wording in this section is also very confusing. It takes about evaluations taking place at school, but doesn't address where else it can take place. It only implies that its somewhere outside of schools. Jmlisi (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Some of the words used are juvenile and not up to the standard of writing that it could be. This type of writing is important in order to correctly get the point across. It should have known facts and up to date information added in order for it to make sense.
 * ~ Mjmakepeace (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mjmakepeace When something in the article is no longer current practice the information should be edited to present it in the proper historical context. For example "From the mid 1970s until 2005 evaluations were done...." and then add the current information "In 2005 policy changes resulted in the introduction of a new system...." Please do not simply remove outdated information, at WP we are far more interested in recording history than simply reporting current events. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Teaching Internship in Special Education
— Assignment last updated by SPEDucator (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)