Sign Up For Our Newsletter

{Scene opens to a packed chamber of the British Parliament for Eduwonk Question Time. A number of studies anxiously await the chance to pose a question to the Eduwonk.}

Mr. Speaker: “Questions to the Eduwonk- Chapter 10 of Rethinking Special Education-Nasty Brutish…and Often Not Very Short: The Attorney Perspective on Due Process”

Nasty, Brutish, etc: “Number 1 Mr. Speaker!”

{Eduwonk rises from the bench, places a book on the dispatch box, and answers}

Eduwonk: “This morning I presided over a meeting of the Education Sector Staff and blogged like mad. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.”

Speaker: “Chapter 10!”

Chapter 10: “Thank you Mr. Speaker. Does the Eduwonk recall editing me? Isn’t it odd for him to claim that the process of some special needs children attending private schools through the legalistic process is adequate when we described the process that can lead to such placements as “blunt, costly, time-consuming, and otherwise imperfect instrument to accomplish its assigned task” in 2001? Does he recall the part where we concluded “The current due process regime is very complex and technical, and thus difficult (if not nearly impossible) for parents to navigate successfully without legal representation or well-trained parent advocates?”

Eduwonk: “It is the position of this blog not to support school vouchers for disabled children unless they can sue their way out of the system. School officials know best about these sort of things, and if they do not, you can attend a school of choice after proving malpractice with a fancy attorney. Can’t afford one of those, well, tough!”

{Backbenchers grumble, the opposition sits with jaws agape in stunned silence}

Speaker: “Chapter 13 of Rethinking Special Education!”

Chapter 13- The Little Known Case of America’s Largest School Choice Program: “Number 1 Mr. Speaker.”

Eduwonk: “I refer the honorable study to the reply I made some moments ago.”

Chapter 13-“Does the Eduwonk recall editing me? Does he recall my extensive quote of Senator McKay:

“‘I talked with the state education commissioner,’ recalls McKay. ‘I told him ‘Look at what happens when the parents come in with a lawyer who can quote the case law. The state ends up paying for a private placement.’ We were doing a great job in empowering the powerful. My question was: What about the rest of the parents?’”

“Does the Eduwonk recall our conclusion that ‘School choice may well be a way to serve special needs students in keeping with the expansive ideal that originally animated the IDEA?’”

Eduwonk: “Uh yeah, um, that was Hokanson who edited that one! Or maybe Finn! That was long ago in another job anyway! And let me repeat, it is the position of this blog not to support school vouchers for disabled children unless they can sue their way out of the system. Um…they….um….create a perverse incentive, or something!”

{Grumbling grows louder, laughter audible from the opposition bench}

Speaker: “Order!”  (Waves gavel threateningly at studies, who reluctantly quiet themselves)

Speaker: “Edpresso McKay Posts One and Two!”

{Edpresso McKay Posts One and Two Stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box}

Edpresso McKay Posts: “Mr. Speaker, is the Eduwonk aware that he has contructed a straw-man in his last post on McKay, arguing that we, and I quote, “It’s CATO-like in its certainty that these problems can’t be fixed within the program but only through vouchers” when in fact we said specifically:

‘I’m all for vigorously reforming the process of SLD identification, improved reading instruction, universal screening and remediation, etc.  Nor do I argue that McKay will solve all the problems of special education. I’m simply arguing that the McKay scholarship program represents a substantial improvement in the delivery of educational services for disabled children.’

{Opposition bench erupts with a chorus of HEAR! HEAR!}    

Speaker: Order! ORDER! ORDER!!!!!!!!!!!

Speaker: “One and Two, please continue.”

Edpresso McKay Posts: “Thank you Mr. Speaker. In addition to straw-man construction, the Eduwonk seems to be ignoring the substantive points raised. He raised concern that districts would be less likely to provide special education services under McKay, but there is no evidence to support this from Florida disability rates. Eduwonk said ‘Ladner seems to be saying that parents need McKay because they’re not empowered in the  current system. But accepting that point is an argument for fixing a problem in IDEA, not creating vouchers.’

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, they’ve had 31 years to ‘empower parents’ in the current system. Isn’t that long enough to wait? The survey results from McKay parents indicate that they love the program, and there isn’t any harm to anyone else. Can the Eduwonk seriously ask us to believe that McKay is “lousy policy” based on the unsubstantiated fear some tiny number of kids might be mislabeled on account of McKay when Chapter 12 of his own report finds that the current system has mislabeled over 2 million students? Isn’t it time for a change?”

{Opposition benches roar with approving guffaws and jeering of the Eduwonk, the speaker vainly attempts to restore order, Eduwonk backbenchers grimace, Eduwonk loosens his tie and slowly approaches the Dispatch box}

Eduwonk: (TO BE CONTINUED AT www.eduwonk.com)

Dr. Matthew Ladner is a former director of state projects for the Alliance for School Choice, and is presently vice president of research at the Goldwater Institute.