Comments on: More Special Ed

By: Choice and the special ed child « Chariho School Parents’ Forum

Choice and the special ed child « Chariho School Parents’ Forum — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:22:46 +0000

[...] about “costs” associated with special education, which we have recently tried to clear up here. At least some of what people identify as the “costs” of special education, especially for [...]

By: Pajamas Media » Yes, Virginia, There Is a Special Ed Bounty

Pajamas Media » Yes, Virginia, There Is a Special Ed Bounty — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:20:20 +0000

By: Curtis Hier

Curtis Hier — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:55:30 +0000

Well, Greg, I think you need to comment on my theory, or at least look into it. A big part of your study and your position has been to discount the “higher incidence” theory. I would say that you haven’t completely discounted that it’s higher incidence.

By: Greg Forster

Greg Forster — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:59:58 +0000

1) That the growth of special ed placements has slowed down isn’t evidence against the existence of a bounty effect. The data in our study pretty convincingly establish that in the 1990s there was a very strong bounty effect. The slowdown is evidence that other factors are now counteracting the bounty effect more effectively than they did before. If nothing else, you would expect schools to reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. When you pick fruit, you pick the low-hanging fruit first, and while you’re doing that the work is easy and it goes fast; your productivity will be high. But you will gradually have to reach higher and higher to get the fruit, after the low-hanging fruit is gone. The work will go more slowly and you will have to expend more effort per fruit, so your productivity will decrease. Similarly, it’s reasonable to expect that increasing the percentage of special education enrollment from 8% to 14% will be much easier than increasing it from 14% to 20%. And that’s on top of any other factors that might be at work – for example, as special education enrollments get larger, they become more noticeable, and there may be pushback against these rising enrollments from people who oppose them. The enactment of RTI, which we’ve been discussing here over the past week or so, establishes that reformers seeking to reduce special education enrollments have gained more influence than they used to have.

2) The theory of learning disabilities you propose is not inconsistent with the existence of a bounty incentive. Again, the data pretty clearly show that there was a strong bounty incentive at least in the 1990s, the period we covered in our study. If what you are describing occurred, it occurred alongside the influence of bounty incentives, not instead of them. (On the question of whether what you’re describing actually did occur I offer no comment, since I’m not sufficiently familiar with the available evidence on the question.)

By: Curtis Hier

Curtis Hier — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:49:52 +0000

A couple things wrong with the “bounty” theory:

1) The percentage of students identified has leveled off in the 2000s.

2) I have a better theory. The increase in the 1980s and 90s came mostly in the category of learning disabled. These learning disabilities were “diagnosed” based on test scores. A low score on a reading test meant there was a “reading disability.”

There was never any proof that these “disabilities” were organically based. I submit that they were the result of early grade teachers doing a poor job of teaching reading. The increase in identified students lagged just behind the whole-language fad that swept across the country. As phonics have regained favor, the number of learning disabled students has stabilized. The special education industry, however, is not likely to dismantle the empire it has built any time soon.

By: Pajamas Media » The Special Education Epidemic

Pajamas Media » The Special Education Epidemic — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:59:39 +0000

[...] didn’t really have a disability. Since then, we’ve been struggling to get past the many myths and misconceptions surrounding special education, trying to get people to see the [...]

By: AwayWeGo!

AwayWeGo! — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:04:48 +0000

It’s good to see special education myths get exposed! I have to get that book!! It’s a shame a lot of parents and teachers don’t get it because it can be confusing and a lot of people think of special education as just self contained classes rather than a full continuum of services. Some kids are classified and get nothing but modifications while at the other end you have out of district placements.

By: Follow the special ed money at Joanne Jacobs

Follow the special ed money at Joanne Jacobs — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:08:40 +0000

[...] Update: Greene has more on special education here. [...]

By: » More Special Ed

» More Special Ed — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:03:32 +0000

[...] C.A.R.D wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt And mental retardation has been declining and total severe disabilities have remained flat over time, contrary to what one would expect if premies and deinstitutionalization w ere at work…. [...]

By: Jay P. Greene

Jay P. Greene — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:17:44 +0000

NYC Educator — I appreciate your apology and I apologize for being overly harsh. I’m relatively new at blogging and I now see how easy it is to go into over-drive too fast. Please accept my apology.

I’m sure that we will agree at times and disagree at other times. I’m glad that this is an area where we are more in agreement than I had thought. Even when we disagree, I’ll strive to stick to the substantive issue.