I’m not a special education (SPED) expert nor will I ever claim to be one. But I do know that it happens to have one of the most mobilized and vocal constituencies in education. And that’s no surprise—understandably, parents of special needs children want their kids to receive the services that they need. But this article brought up a couple issues in special education that continue to be a problem.

I’m assuming the fact we continue to see our SPED numbers grow (and their associated costs) is one of the reasons that Virginia lawmakers have proposed that parents be notified—as opposed to approve—when a district wants to terminate services. I’m guessing some parents look at these services as given. But aren’t most kids (not talking about the ones diagnosed with severe and profound disabilities) supposed to be benefiting from this assistance and eventually testing out of services? We’re told that over a third of special education students in Virginia are deemed learning disabled (LD). Now, I’m not saying that these kids are not learning disabled—just that there’s some pretty solid research that says that early identification and prevention programs (esp. in reading) are better for kids who later end up getting labeled LD than are years and years of SPED services.

One of the other proposed changes places limitations around how often schools are required to update parents on their children’s progress. It’s no secret that special education as a field is particularly rife with compliance-oriented stuff; the amount of paperwork that schools must complete (including the Individualized Education Plans) can be entirely unreasonable (it’s an area the feds have tried to remedy).  Again, folks more knowledgeable than I about this area have set out parameters for what does and doesn’t make sense in terms of compliance features.

Overall, these proposed changes seem to imply that special education is not just about parents and their very strong advocacy groups. Parents like Ms. Harrison recognized as much when she accused state lawmakers of  “taking away parental rights.” So here we go playing the “rights” card (it’s just as effective as the “equity” card, mind you). And no, I’m not against rights or equity; it’s just that it’s an amazingly effective tool in terms of framing a position. I’m just left asking whose “rights” are we advocating for here? Those of parents, teachers, or students?