Education Law

San Francisco Newspaper Lacks Coherent View of Special Education

By Charles Fox

The school systems in the San Francisco Bay Area lack a coherent approach to teaching children with autism according to Nanette Asimov, the education reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, she defines the problem in terms of the following: 

"For years, the high cost of special education has forced districts to skim off money from their regular education budgets. But today, regular education is a virtual ATM card for special education.
                                                                                ***

One reason for the indecision is that autism shows up differently in different people: Some can speak; some can't. Some are bright; some aren't. Some behave unpredictably; others behave with robotic consistency."

She  seems to define a "coherent approach" as being on unified method that works for all students and lacking that uniformity the system is failing and will fail students. Among her other premises is that the system is suddenly  being  overwhelmed with students and that is the primary cause of issues in teaching children with autism. Her analysis misses the point.

I find it hightly objectionable that this article pits the regular education students (and in turn their tax-paying/voting parents) against the minority of children who have autism. According to this article, the one system is draining the other system, e.g. a virtual ATM card. Even the language itself is divisive, as there is only one "system."  If her purpose is to drive a wedge between parents of children with special needs and general education parents (who often are one and the same) she has made an excellent start. These issues do not lend themselves to cliche metaphors or pat answers. We need a cohesive community approach to meeting the needs of all students, not an us against you approach.

Moreover, even after covering these issues for some time, she does not seem to understand the system at all. The problem is not that all children with autism are different; those differences are assumed in the system and  are meant to be addressed at IEP meetings.  IDEIA mandates "individualized" plans to address just those differences among students.  Her so called "coherent approach" would be a one size fits all or most, and until such time as that approach can be found children with autism will be out of luck. Again, this coherence would not be consistent with the law and would not serve the needs of most students. The issue is not "coherence" it is lack of thoughtful educational leadership and in turn insightful journalism.

She even describes children with autism as "enigmatic." As if to say that schools have no idea how to teach children with autism,  and sound methods remain a riddle or a mystery to educators.

There are many well-researched and well-known approaches to working with children with autism. The fact that San Francisco apparently does use all or some of these approaches is the real story that is not captured in this article.  The means of teaching children with autism have been known and written about since before there even was an IDEA or its predecessor the EHA, more than 30 years ago. Yet in 2008, we are still looking for a coherent approach in a major city in the U.S. is just astounding! It is the reality of life that I face every day.

The influx of children with autism is not unique to California and is well known. The numbers did not increase  over night. We can not apply a Hurricane Katrina-style analysis that it happened so quickly, so how could we have responded differently or more effectively. I have seen some (albeit not many) small districts in this area that actually have created quite appropriate autism programs with the hours, intensity, services, training and fidelity to research-based methods that produce good results without going bankrupt. Is there a need for more dollars, of course, but even greater is the need to stop doing the same old thing year after year and belly aching when the district gets sued for denying FAPE.

All parents should as a community demand more from our public officials. They should also expect more than this half baked journalism that relies on cliches instead of real thoughtful analysis to serious problems facing parents of children with autism and other disabilities.

Full post as published by Special Education Law Blog on July 14, 2008 (boomark / email).