.

Address update: Readers can still like and comment on the previous posts, to be sure, but the action is moving to SpecialEducationToday.com (temporarily at http://specialeducationtoday.substack.com)

In fact, I plan to re-post most of the previous content from spedtalk.com to specialeducationtoday.com. So, please just scoot on over there and subscribe!

What if a great, big television is sitting on that cloth? Uh-oh! If there is, for example, a television on a table, it could be tipped over onto a child and cause severe head trauma. Head trauma is one of the leading causes of injury for young children.

• Rutkowski et al. (2011) reported that in the 10 years from 1999 to 2009, the hospital where they worked in Pittsburgh (PA, US) had records for 52 children who had been injured, most often in the head, by falling televisions. One child died.

• Cakir et al. (2018) reported that the records of a single hospital in Turkey showed that 34 children had serious head injuries during a 17-year period.

• Magit et al. (2020) reported that most skull injuries among young childre were from falls, including falling furniture, and that there was a spike in toddlers suffering head injuries during the period 2007-2011, but it has declined.

These are just a few examples of the evidence about the problem of "tip-over" injuries. See the references for additional examples.

And understand that these events are problems for industry, as well. Companies have to recall products such as chests and shelving because of tip-over problems. Here's a list of recalls related to tip-over problems. Are some items you own on this list?

Fortunately, the US Congress is actually deliberating whether to do something about this risk. The House of Representatives may soon vote on the STURDY Act. This shouldn't be a republicans-v-democrats debate. It's everyone's children who are at risk.

Share

Subscribe now

References

Cakir, M., Calikoglu, C., & Ozpolat, O. (2018). Severe craniocerebral traumas from television-tip-over in children. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17(3), 129-132. http://cms.galenos.com.tr/Uploads/Article_20181/EAJEM-17-129-En.pdf

Cusimano, M. D., & Parker, N. (2016). Toppled television sets and head injuries in the pediatric population: a framework for prevention. Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, 17(1), 3-12.

Gokhan, S., Kose, O., Ozhasenekler, A., Orak, M., Ustundag, M., & Guloglu, C. (2010). Mortality and morbidity in children caused by falling televisions: a retrospective analysis of 71 cases. International Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3(4), 305-308.

Magit, A., Stramiello, J. A., Good, R., & Nation, J. (2020). Pediatric basilar skull fracture mechanisms and trends from 2007 to 2018. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, http://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820960727.

Rutkoski, J. D., Sippey, M., & Gaines, B. A. (2011). Traumatic television tip-overs in the pediatric patient population. Journal of Surgical Research, 166(2), 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.05.051

Suresh, N., Harini, G., Radhika, R., & Chidambaram, B. (2010). Head injuries in children resulting from the fall of television. The Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 77(4), 459-460.

Well, one reason is pretty obvious (at least, to me): Special educators aren’t into teaching because it’s going to make them wealthy. Setting aside that notion that teachers completely do not care about compensation (of course they care!) and that they have an altruistic steak, a person pretty much has to “love” the work of teaching. Data show that lots of teachers leave the profession during the first few years they are on the job; among teachers in general, about 8% leave the profession annually and another 8% move to different schools (Boe et al., 2012; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). So, there must be some downside to teaching.

Another reason that we might find the question humorous is that comparisons between others’ salaries and teachers’ salaries are, well, rediculous. It just seems silly that teachers do not receive the high pay associated with other jobs. Of course, I’m cherry-picking the comparisons here but, for example, what if teachers earned a 10th of what corporate executives take home in total compensation? According to Mishel and Kandra (2021) of the Econmic Policy Institute, the average compensation for chief executive officers employed by the top US firms grew substantially in 2020 (despite the pandemic) and it was $21.4 million; so, let’s see, 10% would be a cool $2.4 million a year for a teacher—shoot, 1% would be $240,000! Or, how about just making the average salary of professional athletes? According to the data published on football-reference.com, the mean salary for NFL players is about $1.8 million per year (range: $75K to $31.4 million)…not bad for bashing into other large people! That average salary would be dang good for teaching children to read, write, compute, and behave.

To be sure, teachers do have perks. There’re the holidays and the summers. And, there’s the satisfaction that comes from making a difference in others’ lives. That’s an invaluable perk. BTW, I am particularly fond of the way the slam poet, Taylor Mali, tells this simple perspective when he answered a fellow dinner guest’s question, “What do teachers make?” I encourage readers to watch his YouTube video…but heed a warning that there are some words and gestures that some may consider NSFW.

Back to the thread: According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020), special education teachers on average (median) make a little more than $64,000 per year. Assuming teachers “only” work 10 months a year for 22 working days a month and 8 hours a day, that’s something a little north of $36 per hour. I’d say that raising teachers pay by 25% would represent a good start toward compensation that more closely aligns with the importance of the work. What is more, there is evidence that “relatively modest financial incentives may make a difference in special educators’ retention” (Billingsly & Bettini, 2019, p. 731; read the entire article to help understand the factors contributing to attrition among special education teachers). An annual salary of $80,000 sounds a heckuva lot better than $64,000—even considering the holidays and summers, and saying nothing about the overtime hours.

Perhaps the school closures associated with SARS-CoV-19 have opened the public’s eyes to the importance of the contributions that teachers, and especially special education teachers, make to the fabric and function of our society. Even without those closures, though, it’s about time to pay teachers way better.

References

Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697-744.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teaching area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7– 31. doi:10.1177/001440290807500101

Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.

Football-reference.com (2020). NFL 2020 player salaries. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

Mishell, L., & Kandra, J. (2021). Preliminary data show CEO pay jumped nearly 16% in 2020, while average worker compensation rose 1.8%. Econmic Policy Institute.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). Special education teachers. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Washington, DC.

Subscribe now

Share

• A “3” can appear to be a capital “E” that's rounded and reversed;

• A lower-case “b” looks a lot like a “d” or an upside-down “p”;

• The word “saw” might be read as “was”';

• The order of letters or numerals might be mixed so that “and” might be written “adn” or “973-3722” might be read as “nine-seven-three, three-seven-two-two.

Why does this happen? What's to be done about it?

Mistaken Theory

Samuel Orton, an MD and a pioneer in learning disabilities (the Orton Dyslexia Society, which was named after him, has morphed into the International Dyslexia Society; his name is the first part of “Orton-Gillingham”), promoted a theory that reversals were a result of incompletely established lateral dominance. According to this theory, the dominant hemisphere of the brain, which usually controls language, stores one version of an "engram" such as “was” or “b” while the non-dominant hemisphere stores a mirror image of the engram— “saw” or “d.”

If an individual has incompletely establish dominance, then she or he will sometimes use the engram from the non-dominant hemisphere, and thus read or write the mirror image. Orton even created a name for this problem: “strephosymbolia,” twisted symbols. This theory has been discounted, but the idea persists in popular thinking.

It should come as no surprise that learners make such mistakes. After all, in a child’s world, it oreintation in space barely matters. Big sister “Isabella” has the same name whether she is standing up right, lying on the couch, or standing on her head in a yoga pose. A cup is a cup, whether it’s sitting on the counter, upside down in the dishwasher, or held tilted toward a mouth.

Although nearly all young learners make reversal errors as they learn to read and write, most gradually stop doing so during the primary and elementary grades. Also, if one considers the percentage of total errors that are reversal errors, students with reading problems make no more reversal errors than do their peers who read relatively well; students with reading problems simply make more errors of all types and, thus, we see them make more reversal errors than their peers who read without problems (Fischer et al., 1978; Holmes & Peper, 1977).

So, first take-away: Reversals and mirror writing are not an indicator of neurological problems. They are not a marker of dyslexia. They are developmentally normal.

What Can Be Done?

Perhaps more important than mistaken theories or factual explanations of the phenomenon, people would like to know what to do about reversals or mirror writing.

Clearly, one thing that teachers and parents can do is simply explain that with letters and numerals, it matters which way they point—what Barb Bateman called “the pointy rule.” When a person is lying down or standing up, it's still the same person; when a cup is right-side up or up-side down, it's still a cup. But when a “b” is turned around, it's not a /b/ any longer. It’s got a different sound (or name).

In the 1970s I remember Zig Engelmann suggesting printing “b” on a transparency and getting children to label it correctly as "b" or "not b" as the teacher flipped and twisted the transparency in orientation. (Engelmann also recommended exaggerating the differences between “b” and “d” in printed materials by using different typefaces for them in early reading materials.)

As a preventative, Carnine (1976) showed that introducing similar stimuli—“d” and “b”—separately and only after one of them has been learned to a high criterion reduced the chances of learners confusing them. That’s a programming note for those designing early literacy curricula, and it shows one of the problems with confronting learners with all 44 sounds and 200+ spellings of those sounds at the beginning of their acquisition of reading and writing—i.e., throwing children into a “rich” (i.e., wide-open, uncontrolled) literacy environment

In cases where the problem persists after the primary grades, it merits treatment or intervention. A simple teaching technique has repeatedly been shown to correct mirror writing (Fauke et al., 1973; Hasazi & Hasazi, 1972; Lahey et al., 1977; Stromer, 1975, 1977). Essentially all one has to do is differentially reinforce correct letter formation in writing. The adult can set up a situation in which the child is to write letters, numerals, and words from dictation—somewhat like an old-time spelling test, but kept light and fun—and provide copious amounts of consistent praise contingent on correctly written repsonses:

1. "O.K., here we go. Write the letter for the sound /mmm/."

2. Child writes.

3. [Check and reinforce or correct.]

   [If correct] "That's it. Great!" [Put a smiley face next to it. Go to 4.]

   [If incorrect] "Not quite. Here's how you should write /___/." [Demonstrate.] "Copy it here."

4. O.K., next one. Write the letter for the sound /___/."

5. Check and reinforce or correct. Repeat presentation and check-or-correct steps with new items.

The adult should use mostly very well known items, those that the child is likely to write correctly. Include difficult items, those on which a child makes mistakes, at a ratio of about 1 for every 7-9 known items. If some letters or numerals are particularly problemsome, the adult might pre-correct by showing a model just before the child is asked to write: "Oh boy, here comes that hardy-dardy one. I'm going to ask you to write a ‘3!’ You should make it look like this [show model, then remove it]. O.K., write a ‘3.’" Only use the model a few times, gradually using it on fewer and fewer trials. The adult should keep records about the percentage of correct responses; count each trial rather than estimating.

For reading rather than writing, one can use the same system but substitute touching for writing. For example, show the child an array of two (later three, four, and so on) items—for example, written

m and 3

—and say, "Touch the one for the sound /mmm/." The items should be readily discriminable in the early trials, but gradually the adult can mix in tough items such as

n vs. m or

b vs. d or

saw vs. was

Parallel this activity with another in which the child points to each letter and says its sound; increase the difficulty in a similar way. Remember that correction and reinforcement are critical for increasing the chances that child will respond accurately in the future. (Importantly, one should also gradually increase the criterion for reinforcement; initially, praising almost every correct response, then every second or third correct response, and then every fifth…but once the learner continues to make accurate responses, mix up the reinforcement, every now and again praising every response and then dropping back to every eighth or ninth correct response.)

With either the reading or writing tasks, repeat the practice trials daily for multiple days. Gradually make them more challenging. Don't expect these problems to be corrected in one or a few trials. This is not something where children develop sudden insight. It's more like dribbling a ball than grasping a concept. Keep it fun and make sure that the tasks you give the child are selected so that she or he gets ~90-95% correct.

Second take-away: Reversals can be addressed with systematic instruction.

Although I have focused here on visually confusing stimuli, one should remember that there are also auditorily confusing stimuli, such as “/e/” (as in “pen”) and “/i/” (as in “pin”).

Collecting data

As with virtually any intervention procedure, it’s important to know whether the learner’s performance is improving. Assessing change in performance requires monitoring how the learner is doing over time. Curriculum-based measurement is an excellent way to monitor progress. In this case one may also want to collect some more-focused data. Behavior analysts, for example, keep trial-by-trail records of what stimulus is presented, whether the student responded accurately, and whether reinforcement was delivered. For students with substantial problems with “reversals,” it probably would be beneficial to (a) collect the trial-by-trial data (also helps one analyze the sequence of instruction and the ratios of reinforcement) as well (b) analyze the proportion of reversed letters in “free writing” activities (i.e., those when explicit instruction is not being employed).

References

Carnine, D. W. (1976). Similar sound separation and cumulative introduction in learning letter-sound correspondences. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 368-372.

Fauke, J., Burnett, J., Powers, M. A., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1973). Improvement of handwriting and letter recognition skills: A behavior modification procedure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 6, 296-300.

Fischer, F. W., Liberman, I. Y., &; Shankweiler, D. (1978). Reading reversals and developmental dyslexia: A further study. Cortex, 14, 496-510.

Hasazi, J. E., & Hasazi, S. E. (1972). Effects of teaching attention on digit-reversal behavior in an elementary school child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 157-162. [Available here for free.]

Holmes, D. L., & Peper, R. J. (1977). An evaluation of the use of spelling error analysis in the diagnosis of reading disabilities. Child Development, 48, 1708-1711.

Lahey, B. B., Busemeyer, M. K., O'Hara, C., & Beggs, V. E. (1977). Treatment of severe perceptual-motor disorders in children diagnosed a learning disabled. Behavior Modification, 1, 123-140.

Stromer, R. (1975). Modifying letter and number reversals in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 211. [Available here for free.]

Stromer, R. (1977). Remediating academic deficiencies in learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, 43, 432-440.

Share

Subscribe now

Note: I published an earlier version of this content on LDBlog.com. The 1st draft appeared 5 Mar 2007; I revised it 15 Jan 2008.

Subscribers

We have grown. Thank you for serving as vectors for knowledge of the special education resources available via this magazine. Please keep on telling others about the magazine. Use the "share" button. It's still free—all of the content published so far—and I hope that readers are finding it worth reading.

As I noted last week, I plan to widen the solicitation of readers. This week, after I have sent all y'all faithful readers this newsletter, I'll go to Twitter and post a notice about it. If you're following me @johnwillslloyd (or @spedpro) on Twitter, please watch for an announcement and issue a "like" or a "retweet" so your followers will get the word.

Spedtalk, the name

As reported previously, there are potential problems with using "spedtalk" as the name for the magazine. I haven't resolved the issues or made definitive plans. Still, I alert you to the possibility that I may be using "spedtalk" only temporarily.

But I won't give up on the community called “spedtalk” that many of us have shared since the early 1990s. If I've got to use a different name, I'll let folks know! For now, I think we are OK saying "https://www.spedtalk.com/" and continuing our efforts to promote improved services for individuals with disabilities, their teachers, and their parents. If it happens that someone scares us off the domain name, we’ll let readers know a new source for the community.

Current Contents

This week, you can find articles about various topics in the magazine. Here they are in chronolgoical order (FIFO):

• News: ASAT newsletter for June 2021: The Association for Science in Autism Treatment published its newsletter...this is an excellent source for evidence-based treatment-intervention.

• News: Special ed's effects on academics among students with LD: Study confirms that students with learning disabilities receiving special education have higher test scores. Holy smokes! Can you believe it? Special education helps?

• News: EU researchers express concern about SARS-Cov-19 and vulnerable groups: Individuals with disabilities are among the individuals who deserve assistance, as if having a disability wasn't enough!

• News: Australian support "hub" for individuals with autism launched: Organization called "Amaze" is offering access to resources via "Autism Connect." Go, OZ!

• News: In context of SARS-Cov-19, large CA school systems promoted early literacy program: Alameda, Los Angeles, and San Diego schools adopted instructional practices to help students who may have trouble developing early early reading skills. Even in a pandemic, core issues should be addressed.

• News: US Food & Drug Administration authorized marketing of "device" to aid diagnosis of ASD: New system may be used by physcians to screen quickly for developmental disabilities--it's an interesting use of the word "device," but yay!

Your comments

Thanks for dropping comments. I hope the magazine will support thoughtful, civil, informed, and collegial discussion of matters that concern individuals with disabilities, their parents and teachers, and others who care about those matters. Please comment on posts...and thanks to Professor Jane Bogan for her thoughtful discussion about why people buy bogus (or, at least, weak) arguments.

Personal notes

This weekend is the anniversary of my elder brother's birth. William E. Lloyd, Jr., would be turning 77 this weekend. He died in 2009, and I'm very sorry that I couldn't be with him to hold his hand as he passed. He was a really smart guy who studied chemical engineering at the University of Virginia and then, after a stint working in a patents office, studied law at American University. He took all kinds of cases (dog bite, anyone?) in his practice while he lived in Northern Virginia. As time passed and he moved to Los Angeles and focused on medical malpractice (I teased him about being an "ambulance chaser" and he took it well). Although I could tell myriad stories about Bill, I simply want readers to know that I was proud of him. He was wonderfully affiliative person…connected with family…considerate…a thoughtful advisor-consultant. I miss him greatly. This weekend, I hope to take a bit of his favortite whiskey and sip it and dump the remainder on his grave.

So, I hope everyone is well, safe, and happy. Please remember to give a damn about each other, reach out to your peeps, and teach your children well.

JohnL

Share

Subscribe now

The Cognoa assessment is comprised of three parts: A 4-minute, parent-report questionnaire; observation of key behaviors using a 2-minute, semi-structured home video of children; and a 2-minute clinician-completed questionnaire. The FDA examined how safe and effective the system was in a study of 425 patients aged 18 months through 5 years. That study revealed agreement between the Cognoa system and a panel of clinical experts. The FDA reported that, among the 31% of children that the system called "positive" or "negative," the system and the expert panels agreed about whether children had ASD on 81% of cases; the system was accurate in 98% of children who did and 79% of those who did not have ASD. A study by Abbas et al. (2020) reported that the system performs better than alternative screeners when employed with children 18-72 months of age.

It is important to note that the Cognoa device has only been tested as an aid in diagnosis. It has not been found to be an appropriate system to use on its own for diagnosis of ASD.

Said another way, developers hope that the diagnostic aid will help physcians expedite formal diagnosis of ASD. According to the FDA bulletin,

“Autism spectrum disorder can delay a child’s physical, cognitive and social development, including motor skill development, learning, communication and interacting with others. The earlier ASD can be diagnosed, the more quickly intervention strategies and appropriate therapies can begin,” said Jeff Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Today’s marketing authorization provides a new tool for helping diagnose children with ASD.”

Here is a link to the FDA Bulletin announcing the authorization. Here is a link to a press release from September 2020 by Cognoa that described the company's plans to seek authorization.

References

Abbas, H., Garberson, F., Liu-Mayo, S., Glover, E., & Wall, D. P. (2020). Multi-modular AI approach to streamline autism diagnosis in young children. Scientific Reports, 10, 5014. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61213-w

Subscribe now

Share

The program used in LA, called “PRIDE,” apparently is the property of a company that advocates use of materials and practices related to what is known as the Orton-Gillingham method. The Orton-Gillingham approach is predicated on intensive instruction in letter-sound relationships and is often called "multi-sensory." The multi-sensory appellation refers to learners (a) seeing (i.e., visual) a letter and saying (auditory) the sound associated with it and (b) hearing (auditory) the sound and writing (kinesthetic) the letter.

Of course, there are many other features of Orton-Gillingham methods. For example, children learn cursive writing early on, on the theory that cursive makes it harder to "reverse letters" or employ "mirror writing"—Dr. Orton's "strephosymbolia" or "twisted characters." Gillingham and Stillman, around 1940, presented the clasic treatment of the venerable approach. I learned it from the 1960 edition, and I think it's now in an 8th or 9th edition; the manual from which I learned about it had an introduction that explained problems with modern (at that time) reading instruction practices—an introduction that I imagined at that time would be a considerate way to explain to older students why I was going to make them revert to learning letters and sounds.

Readers should note that a forthcoming article in Exceptional Children examines the research evidence about the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham methods. Stevens et al (2021) reported results that ardent advocates of those methods will probably find somewhat disappointing. (Disclosure: I currently serve as co-editor of Exceptional Children.)

Read Ms. Morales’s article, Learn more about PRIDE Publishing’s program and San Diego’s implementation of it. (The last two are commercial sites; I make nothing by linking to them.)

References

Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. (1940). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Sackett & Wilhelms.

Stevens, E. A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A. N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or a risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921993406

Subscribe now

Share

The producers have created a hub that people in the autism community of Australia can use to learn about services.

This hub includes fact sheets, tools, and a local directory for people to locate services and community activities near them.

Minister for Families and Social Services Anne Ruston said the Morrison government provided $8.4 million to expand Autism Connect into a national support service.

“From diagnosis through to adulthood, we want to ensure the more than 200,000 Australian people with autism have the right support to meet their needs and participate fully in the community,” Ruston said.

Read Mr. Michael's report and learn more about Amaze's "Autism Connect."

Subscribe now

Share

Here is a relevant segment from his report in which he uses the United Kingdom term "learning disabilities" to refer to people whom people in the United States identify as having "intellectual disability":

One group that has been particularly hard hit by the virus are those with learning disabilities. In some countries, such as the UK, death rates among people with learning disabilities were six times higher than in the general population in the first wave of coronavirus.

"In the data we have today, there is good evidence that people with disabilities and especially those with intellectual and learning disabilities, are being quite badly hit by Covid-19," said Dr Jessica Dimka, a biological anthropologist at Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway.

Mr. Gray included additional paragraphs in his story for Horizon.

Subscribe now

Share

Looking specifically at students with learning disabilities, Schwartz and colleagues found that the students' academic outcomes improve following classification and enrollment in special education. What is more, the effects are largest for those entering special education in earlier grades.

Here is the abstract from Schwartz et al.:

In the 40-plus years since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, special ed- ucation has grown in the number of students and amount spent on services. Despite this growth, academic performance of students with disabilities remains troublingly low compared to general education students. To some extent, these differences reflect persistent underlying disabilities, but they also may reflect ineffective services. Does special education improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities? There is surprisingly little evidence to guide policy and answer this question. This paper provides an answer for the largest disability group, students with specific learning disabilities (LDs), using rich New York City public school data. Because the majority of LDs are classified after school entry, we observe outcomes before and after classification, allow- ing us to estimate impacts using within-student pre/post comparisons (student fixed effects) and an intent-to-treat specification. We find that academic outcomes improve for LDs following classification into special education and impacts are largest for those entering special education in earlier grades. Attendance, however, shows little change after classification. Results are robust to alternative specifications and falsification tests bolster confidence in a causal interpretation. Differences in impacts by gender, race/ethnicity, grade of classification, and settings illuminate possible mechanisms.

The question of effectiveness (or efficacy; people debate the nuanced differences in these terms) is a recurring question, and many people have expressed opinions about the issue. Some have actually examined data about the overall question of whether students who get special education have better outcomes (e.g., Kavale, 1990; Marston, 1998), others have conceptualized the issue as one of teacher effectiveness (e.g., Englert, 1983; Sindelar et al., 1986), some have discussed the methods used to study the question (e.g., Tindall, 1985), and yet others have considered certain aspects that might contribute to understanding the question (e.g., Hocutt, 1996).

Add to this catalog a set of three studies that each examined the question using a specific method (see Angrist & Pischke 2009). That method is often referred to as "student fixed effects"; the method involvescomparing many students' performance before receiving special education to their performance during and after participating in special education (Hanushek et al., 2002; Hurwitz et al., 2020; and the one that is the subject of this post, Schwartz et al., 2021). Does students' performance improve as a consequence of being identified and receiving special education? If performance is higher (corrected for aging) after special education, that points to the benefits of special education.

Especially interesting in the the analysis by Schwartz et al. (2021) is the observation that the benefits of special education are particularly evident for younger students. Much of current practice in education has focused on delaying determination of eligibility for special education. Under the rubric of "response to intervention," "data-based decision making," and other phrases describing practices and procedures, state and local education agencies have adopted plans to assess virtually all students' progress and only evaluate for special education eligibility those students who have failed repeatedly in "tier 1" and "tier 2" programs.

Limitations

What's a report about research without limitations? Well here are a couple:

First, there are potential reservations about the student-fixed-effects method. Often, for example, the analyses examine only students from a specific local education agency, so it's impossible to determine whether those effects—positive or negative—are solely the result of the special education placement or whether they may be affected by the local policies, the way that the specific LEA conducts it's special education practices. So, as much as I personally want to cheer for these demonstrations that special education appears to be effective, I want to exercise caution. They provide a "strong maybe."

Second, the present study (nor the others) does not show what aspect of special education is the active ingredient, just that blah-blah. Identifying the effective factor or factors will take longer.

Flash of the electrons to Dan Hallahan, Paul Morgan, and other colleagues who provided me with fodder for this post!

Interested readers may (please) add other comments.

References

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Instrumental variables in action: Sometimes you get what you need. Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Presentation slide deck available from http://www.cedlas-er.org/sites/default/files/aux_files/ivhandout_may2011b.pdf

Englert, C. S. (1983). Measuring special education teacher effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 50(3), 247-254.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 584-599.

Hurwitz, S., Perry, B., Cohen, E. D., & Skiba, R. (2020). Special education and individualized academic growth: A longitudinal assessment of outcomes for students with disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 576-611.

Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special education: Is placement the critical factor?. The Future of Children, 6(1), 77-102.

Kavale, K. (1990). Effectiveness of special education. In The handbook of school psychology, T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.; pp. 868–898). John Wiley & Sons.

Marston, D. (1988). The effectiveness of special education: A time series analysis of reading performance in regular and special education settings. The Journal of Special Education, 21(4), 13-26.

Sindelar, P. T., Smith, M. A., Harriman, N. E., Hale, R. L., & Wilson, R. J. (1986). Teacher effectiveness in special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 195-207.

Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2021). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(2) 480-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22282

Tindal, G. (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(2), 101-112.

I highly recommend ASAT for teachers, parents, and others concerned about effective services for individuals with autism (or “autisitc individuals,” as some autistic adults prefer).

Please remember to subscribe and share!

Subscribe now

Share

Subsrcibers

Spedtalk has grown. From the first two subscribers, the list is now approaching 200 subscribers. Please keep on telling others about the magazine. Use the "share" button. It's still free—all of it—and I hope that readers are finding it worth reading.

So far, I have limited my solicitations of subscriptions. I have advertised spedtalk to those of you who are members of a mailing list mostly composed of academics who conduct research about special education and to those who have subscribed to the free version. These are my peeps, and I like having them read this site. But the site is not aimed at researchers and such. I hope that it helps teachers, parents, administrators, and similar folks who are concerned about the education of individual children and youth with disabilities to secure better services for those individuals with disabilities!

Soon, I plan to widen the solicitation of readers. I'll go to some social media and such. And I hope that you readers will continue to disseminate word about this resource to others with similar concerns.

Spedtalk, the name

There is a hitch in this get-along, though, as I reported last week. It appears that an attorney applied to the US Patent and Trademark Office to secure a trademark on "spedtalk." Apparently, the application does not recognize that I have been using "spedtalk" since the early 1990s. My common-law trademark may not hold, and that I have owned the domain name, "spedtalk.*" for > 20 years, may not matter. Indeed, it seems that because I did not seek to make money during my historic use of "spedtalk," the new applicants have leverage.

So, I alert you to the possibility that "spedtalk" may be robbed from us. Our community since the early 1990s may be declared defunct because I failed to register the name officially. I apologize for this apparent oversight.

For right now, I think we are OK saying "https//www.spedtalk.com/" and persisting with our efforts to promote improved services for individuals with disabilities, their teachers, and their parents. If I have to change the name, I'll let folks know.

Current Contents

This week, you can find articles covering news, editorial matters, and et cetera.

• There is a note about the woes of the Sprout Film Festival. The venerable program is closing because of financial problems. Sprout had a great run and I hope it can come back soon. https://www.spedtalk.com/p/news-sprout-films-cuts-back

• We had a post about treating pica, the problem of some children mouthing or eating materials that are dangerous. How do people (parents & teachers) address this problem? https://www.spedtalk.com/p/news-advising-parents-about-pica

• I posted an editorial about "brain-based education." I'm surprised by how many legs this idea has (is it a millipede?), but how little scientific support it has—especially when its advocates routinely claim research and science as foundational principles. https://www.spedtalk.com/p/editorial-brain-based-education

Your observations

One of the reasons that I built SpedTalk (and its predecessors and successors) is to engender civil, informed, and collegial discussion of matters that concern individuals with disabilities, their parents and teachers, and others who give a darn about those matters. I want to take this moment in the SpedTalk newsletter to encourage readers not simply to read the posts, but to comment on them, to discuss them with others who comment on them, to contribute to the commonweal of individuals with disabilities by helping to promote evidence-based and logic-informed conversation.

So, please comment on posts. I was pleased to see comments by "jesse" and "Jim Kauffman" on recent posts. I hope that readers will engage with each other (and me) regarding the ideas on posts.

And, I hope everyone is well, safe, and happy. Please remember to take care of each other, and to teach your children well.

JohnL

Subscribe now

Share

First, of course, I should define my terms, right? So to what does this brain-based education talk refer? Here’s a quick, non-exhaustive catalog (with links in the references), though I’m reluctant to generate traffic for the sites):

• According to Wilson (2021), “Brain-based learning has hatched a new discipline now entitled by some as educational neuroscience, or by others mind, brain, and education science (Sousa, 2011). Whatever we call this “not really new” discipline, it is a comprehensive approach to instruction using current research from neuroscience. Brain-based education emphasizes how the brain learns naturally and is based on what we currently know about the actual structure and function of the human brain at varying developmental stages. Using the latest neural research, educational techniques that are brain friendly provide a biologically driven framework for creating effective instruction.”

• Waterford.org (2019) answers the “what is” question in this way: “Rather than a concrete theory, brain-based learning is more of an educational mindset. In a nutshell, brain-based learning can be defined as all learning theories in education that use research from… fields [such as]…Psychology, Neuroscience, Technology…In other words, strategies that fall under the brain-based learning umbrella include anything developed to align with the way our brains naturally learn. There’s no one set theory that encompasses brain-based learning, so the breadth of it all can feel daunting. However, it also means that anything you do to stay on top of educational science and bring it to the classroom contributes to the use of brain-based learning with your students.”

• McCandliss (2021) reported that “The overall goal of brain-based education is to attempt to bring insights from brain research into the arena of education to enhance teaching and learning. The area of science often referred to as  brain research  typically includes neuroscience studies that probe the patterns of cellular development in various brain areas; and brain imaging techniques, with the latter including functional MRI (fMRI) scans and positron-emission tomography (PET) scans that allow scientists to examine patterns of activity in the awake, thinking, human brain. These brain imaging techniques allow scientists to examine activity within various areas of the brain as a person engages in mental actions such as attending, learning, and remembering. Proponents of brain-based education espouse a diverse group of educational practices and approaches, and they generally attempt to ground claims about effective practice in recently discovered facts about the human brain. They argue that there has been an unprecedented explosion of new findings related to the development and organization of the human brain and that the current state of this work can inform educational practice in meaningful ways.

• EdGlossary (2013) also provided a description: “Brain-based learning refers to teaching methods, lesson designs, and school programs that are based on the latest scientific research about how the brain learns, including such factors as cognitive development—how students learn differently as they age, grow, and mature socially, emotionally, and cognitively. Brain-based learning is motivated by the general belief that learning can be accelerated and improved if educators base how and what they teach on the science of learning, rather than on past educational practices, established conventions, or assumptions about the learning process. For example, it was commonly believed that intelligence is a fixed characteristic that remains largely unchanged throughout a person’s life. However, recent discoveries in cognitive science have revealed that the human brain physically changes when it learns, and that after practicing certain skills it becomes increasingly easier to continue learning and improving those skills. This finding—that learning effectively improves brain functioning, resiliency, and working intelligence—has potentially far-reaching implications for how schools can design their academic programs and how teachers could structure educational experiences in the classroom.

These quotes come from the first four sources I located when I searched the Internet in early June or 2021 using the very simple search query, “brain-based education.” There are many others; explore! I was impressed by how these and other sites played what I consider “fast and loose” with reason and scientific evidence.  Although some of them cited sources and one (McCandliss, 2021) was more cautious than the others, few of those cited sources were actual research reports. Mostly, they referred to books and Web posts that argued a point of view. That is, the basis for advocacy for most of the special practices under the rubric of “brain-based” education was—wait for it…—other authorities’ personal opinion. 

I do not claim substantial status as a neuroscientist. I have read a lot of neuroscience (start with Gazzaniga, 2009!). Anyone who’s read more than, say, 6-10 chapters in the Gazzaniga book will have an idea about what brain science is and should be able to make more informed analyses of the claims of the advocates cited here. And, you know, I even co-authored a paper about brain research and education with one of the deserved darlings of discussions of the brain and education, my colleague and pal, Dan Willingham (Willingham & Lloyd, 2007). One could use that paper for a little introduction to the problems with translating brain science into education practice. 

Before I leave this analysis, I’d like to take a look at what the advocates of brain-based education recommend for teaching practices. Here’s a quick catalog of recommendations; I grabbed them directly from the sources I cited previously, so they are syntactially jumbly.

But, why show them here? Because considering the practices, procedures, methods, and techniques recommended by the advocates of brain-based education reveals how bogus many of those arguments are. They are based on theory and argument, not evidence of effectiveness. 

• a child’s learning environment can enhance or impair their academic achievement;

• avoid creating lessons or situations that make students feel overly anxious, threatened, or helpless;

• brain-based learning is not only theoretical but practical, too. Model your assignments in ways that mirror challenges students may face in real life;

• cooperative learning;

• emotions are critical to patterning;

• experiential learning;

• experiential learning;

• keep in mind that brain-based learning also encompasses social-emotional development. Plan lessons that teach students social and team-building skills;

• learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes;

• learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception;

• learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat;

• learning styles;

• lessons shouldn’t just involve memorizing words or facts. Use activities and lessons to help students learn how to problem solve and develop critical thinking skills that will benefit them for their entire academic career;

• mastery learning;

• movement education, also known as embodied learning;

• multiple intelligences;

• not every brain-based learning strategy will be a good fit for your students. Try out a variety of different strategies to find the best ones for your class;

• practical simulations;

• problem-based learning;

• the brain is a complex adaptive system;

• the brain is a social brain;

• the brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously;

• the search for meaning is innate;

• the search for meaning occurs through patterning;

• we have at least two different types of memory: a spatial memory system and a set of systems for rote learning;

• we understand and remember best when facts and skills are embedded in natural, spatial memory;

How many of these practices do you consider to be founded in research on the effectiveness of teaching? Are there experiments that compared, for example, outcomes for teaching methods in which “the brain is a complex adaptive system” to other methods in which that is not the perspective of instructional designer? Do experiments show that methods in which “emotions are critical to patterning” produce better outcomes than methods where emotions are not considered critical to patterning? And…and…how do we know that some teaching methods are exemplars of the view that “the brain is a complex adaptive system” and others are not? What are the hallmarks of methods in which “emotions are critical to patterning” versus those where emotions are not critical? 

Let me go back to the beginning, please. There are educational resources that tout the importance of the brain in learning and education. Carefully reviewing those sources shows that few of them draw from strong research evidence. What is more, they recommend a lot of poppycock methods, practices, techniques, and such. There can be little doubt that individual’s brains are involved in learning; the very concept of plasticity is a description of learning! But making the leap to popular practices—particularly practices for which there is little or no evidence that employing those practices improves learners’ outcomes—is a leap too far. 

Is “brain-based learning” bunkum? No. Of course, not. Everyone uses her brain in learning!

Is what lots of people contend is the evidence for brain-based education and recommended practices bogus? Yes. 

Let’s please use sensible standards of evidence and logic before adopting teaching practices that may well waste the precious time of kids with disabilities. Learners with disabilities need the very best, the most efficient and effective instruction that we can provide. Few, if any, will benefit when we adopt popular theories that are not founded on solid evidence. 

References

EdGlossary. (2013). Brain-based learning. https://www.edglossary.org/brain-based-learning/

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2009). The cognitive neurosciences. MIT press.

McCandliss, B. (2021). Brain-Based Education: Summary Principles of Brain-Based Research, Critiques of Brain-Based Education. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1799/Brain-Based-Education.html

Waterford.org. (2019). How to use brain-based learning in the classroom. https://www.waterford.org/education/brain-based-learning/

Willingham, D. T., & Lloyd, J. W. (2007). How educational theories can use neuroscientific data. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(3), 140-149.

Wilson, L. O. (2021). Brain-based education–An overview. https://thesecondprinciple.com/optimal-learning/brain-based-education-an-overview/

Pica is a dangerous, potentially life-threatening behavior for anyone. Depending on what objects are ingested, young children may face nutritional deficiencies, choking, poisoning, parasites, blood infections, intestinal blockages or perforations, etc. These problems can require hospital visits, surgery, and may even cause death.

In this article, we’ll explore what exactly pica is, what may cause it, and how you can help your child with autism if it’s something he/she struggles with.

In her description of how to help individuals with autism who have problems with putting inedible items in their mouths, Ms. Delano described four studies that used differential reinforcement to treat pica. Her descriptions of the studies are largely accurate and clear, making them accessible for lay readers.

Many research teams have reported methods for treating pica. As early as 1975 (see Foxx & Martin), behavior analysts addressed this problem, and they have continued to examine it much more recently (see Ledford et al., 2019). Some teams such as the one associated with Cathleen Piazza, Tiffany Kodak, and their colleagues have conducted multiple studies of pica as a part of broader work on eating (e.g., food refusal, mealtime misbehavior, and more). Also see studies reported by F. Charles ("Bud") Mace and his colleagues. Readers interested in these topics can search for work by any of these authors and find helpful articles.

I have listed a few of these various studies in the references. Note that not all of them examined pica among individuals with autism—no surprise, as other people may also mouth or eat non-food items.

Many of these studies employed functional analyses or functional behavior analysis. Understanding the functions of behaviors is a very important procedure for explaining and treating behavior problems. However, it is a topic for another post (or, perhaps, a series of posts).

Meanwhile, read Ms. Delano’s article!

References

Foxx, R. M., & Martin, E. D. (1975). Treatment of scavenging behavior (coprophagy and pica) by overcorrection. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 13(2-3), 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(75)90009-1

Kodak, T., & Piazza, C. C. (2008). Assessment and behavioral treatment of feeding and sleeping disorders in children with autism spectrum disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(4), 887-905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2008.06.005

Ledford, J. R., Barton, E. E., Rigor, M. N., Stankiewicz, K. C., Chazin, K. T., Harbin, E. R., & Taylor, A. L. (2019). Functional analysis and treatment of pica on a preschool playground. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(1), 176-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00283-9

Mace, F. C., & Knight, D. (1986). Functional analysis and treatment of severe pica. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(4), 411-416. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1986.19-411

Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Leblanc, L. A., Worsdell, A. S., Lindauer, S. E., & Keeney, K. M. (1998), Treatment of pica through multiple analyses of its reinforcing functions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31 (2): 165-189. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-165

Since 1979, Sprout has supported an ambitious and wide-ranging program of video work. Its videos have featured people with disabilities not just on camera, but also in production. The videos have provided humane insight into the world of disabilities. Sprout showed these videos together in an annual festival and also disseminated them broadly with a travelling program and Internet distribution.

Financial hardship that accompanied the restrictions caused by the SARS-Cov-19 crisis made continuing Sprout's program untenable. Mr. Di Salvo indicated that Sprout will continue some limited operations. Learn more at the Sprout Web site.

29 May 2021

Volume 1, Number 2

Dear Readers,

Welcome to the second issue of the newsletter for SpedTalk. There is a lot of news that I hope to convey clearly to all of you (in my childhood, I would've written, "All y'all") readers...and there is a shipload of you more than there was recently. Yay!

There'll be (a) news about the community. In addition, of course, there will be (b) news about the content of SpedTalk over the last week. I'll also drop in some news about (c) some technical issues. And, last, I'll beg you to contribute (d) your own observations.

Subscribers

Last week I reported that there were two subscribed addresses for SpedTalk. The good news is that both of those subscribed addresses are still subscribed; no subscriber from the first week abandoned SpedTalk. (Of course, somnambulant readers will probably recognize that those first two subscribers were my own addresses.... OK, caught me red-handed.)

The even better news is that, as of the afternoon of 29 May 2021, there are > 150 subscribers. Many people who have subscribed are pals of mine from over the years—fellow professors, for example—but I simply have no idea from where many other subscribers came. Still, welcome to new subscribers!

My supposition is that many of you, dear readers, have shared links from SpedTalk with others (and I'm looking directly at you, even though you're half way around the world in OZ, Kerry Hempenstall). If you share my passion for getting trustworthy content about special education and disabilities to practicing educators, thank you for sharing! Please continue to do so!

Technical Issues

I want SpedTalk to be readily accessible. Part of doing so is creating a "brand." I've been using "SpedTalk" as a name since the early- to mid-1990s (as some readers will remember). Therefore, I am working to rename "http://spedtalk.substack.com" to "http://spedtalk.com." I have worked on this for hours the last week. I have had excellent assistance from http://dotearth.com, the domain registrar I have used for more than 20 years—let me recommend DotEarth—and also working with the support team from substack.com to make the proper connections.

I am hoping that I can complete the transition to the canonical url of SpedTalk.com in the next few days. I hope to make this happen soon! I may be a Johnny, but I’m not a Johnny-come-lately! The transition is mostly technical (ANAMEs, CNAMEs, HTTPD.config files, DNS systems, etc.), but there are some other issues. For example, there are other groups (e.g., law firms) who are using the name “spedtalk” with different capitalization and etc. But, long-time speducators know about spedtalk…so please remember to link your uses of “spedtalk” to this resource!

Current Contents

This week, you can find articles about news, editorial matters, and et cetera. Here’s the list of them:

• The US Department of Education’s guidance about re-opening schools in ways that conform to IDEA’s and Section 504’s requirements:
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/news-what-guidance-does-the-us-ed

• How about teaching social skills? This popular topic got a new update recently. Does that update’s finding provide trustworthy guidance?
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/current-research-does-teaching-social

• Editorial: What's the most effective intervention? Parents, teachers, and researchers often ask about effective interventions. How do we know which ones actually are effective?
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/editorial-whats-the-most-effective

• News: $15K bonus for special ed teachers! Should local education agencies provide bonuses to special education teachers? Given that they are greatly in demand and have specialized training, I think so!
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/15k-bonus-for-special-ed-teachers

• News: Does the pandemic continue to affect individuals with disabilities? What are the effects on individuals with disabilities? Wanta bet that the effects are beneficial?
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/news-does-the-pandemic-continue-to

• News: US NCES's Condidition of Education reported child count data show important changes in which students with disabilities get services where and when and under what categories.
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/us-ncess-condidition-of-education

• News: A new analysis by the Brookings Institute contends that special education is both beneficial and problematic. Read "New report calls sped "beneficial to many, harmful to others" and see whether you agree.
  https://spedtalk.substack.com/p/news-new-report-calls-sped-beneficial

Your observations

Please comment on posts. This is the Level-1 Beg. I need your help…and it should come in the form of engaging in discussions.

One of the foremost reasons that I built SpedTalk (and its successors, siblings, and cousins) is to engender civil, informed, and collegial discussion of matters that concern individuals with disabilities, their parents and teachers, and others who give a darn about those matters. In this moment in the SpedTalk newsletter. I encourage readers not simply to read the posts, but to comment on them, to crituque them, to discuss them with others who comment on them, to contribute to the commonweal of individuals with disabilities (and those who care about them) by helping to promote evidence-based and logic-informed conversation.

So, I hope all y'all are well, safe, and happy. Even as you leave your cocoons and even as venture forth without masks (if y'all are vaccinated!), please remember to alert others about SpedTalk, send me notes about your observations about SpedTalk, and especially drop comments on articles.

And please remember to teach your children well.

JohnL

Subscribe now

Share

However, Ms. Ballis and Ms. Heath provide some confusing statements. Here, for example, is a direct quote:

When students of any race are removed from SE [special education] in response to the cap on overall SE enrollment, their long-run outcomes suffer. However, when Black students are removed from SE in response to capping disproportionality, their outcomes improve.

It appears to me that the basis for the conflicting statements in the foregoing quotation [(a) students of any race have worse outcomes and (b) Black students have improved outcomes] is either ill-chosen use of the word “any” in the first part of it or an observation based on their research methods—they were able to separate main effects for average students who were denied services from specific effects for students denied services because of disproportionality. They predicate their analysis on two papers they have recently published. One is in journals of the American Economic Association and the other in Brown University’s Annenberg Center education working papers.

Resolving the conflict will require detailed examination of the methods in those two reports, I suspect. I encourage readers who have a chance to review the papers to contribute to the comments on this SpedTalk entry.

Subscribe now

Share

Dr. Baumer also discussed the gaps in public relief efforts and difficulties some individuals with disabilities may have in understanding and implementing recommendations of public health officials. Some features of disabilities themselves may make it more difficult for individuals with, for example, intellectual disability, to adopt safe habits (washing one's hands; wearing a mask; receiving a vaccination). In addition, some aspects of the services these children, youths, and adults receive—for example, conjugate living arrangements—may put them at greater risk for infection.

Dr. Baumer serves as a child neurologist and as a specialist on neurodevelopmental disabilities at Boston Children's Hospital; she is also an instructor in neurology at Harvard Medical School. She directs the Boston Children's Hospital Down Syndrome Program and specializes in treatment of individuals with Down syndrome, autism, ADHD, and other neurobehavioral disorders.

If some readers of this SpedTalk post have recommendations about promoting public health recommendations for individuals with autism, intellectual disability, or other disabilities, please provide them in the comments on this post. I especially welcome comments that link to research evidence about recommended practices.

Read Dr. Baumer’s blog post.

Subscribe now

Share this SpedTalk post:

Share