Special Education Is a Service, Not a Place — But Sometimes That Service Requires a Specific Place
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder addresses the popular saying that 'SPED is a service, not a place,' arguing that sometimes the right service is a specific placement.
Key Takeaways
- The saying is technically true but misleading - Special education is indeed a set of services, but those services sometimes require a specialized setting
- Full inclusion can't meet every student's needs - Some students need self-contained classrooms, resource rooms, or specialized programs
- Placement is part of the service - Denying a student an appropriate setting in the name of 'SPED is not a place' is doing them a disservice
Transcript
Special education does sometimes need to be a place.
There's an old saying that special education is a service, not a place.
And I think that's a good thing to keep in mind.
It's good to keep in mind that special ed should not be just by default a specific placement, but rather a set of services that allow the child to be educated in the least restrictive environment that can meet their needs.
And that is an IEP team decision, which is why it's so puzzling to me that there's such a heavy push now for 100% full inclusion, not to say that 80 or 90 or 95% of students should be able to receive their services in an inclusive setting, but 100%.
Think about what an extreme number and what an extreme position that is to take to say that 100% of students need to be served in a fully inclusive setting.
And self-contained is just off the table.
That is what is being pushed for by a lot of activists now, by a lot of advocates, by a lot of parents, by a lot of consultants who want districts to stop offering specialized placements for students.
And I'm convinced that a lot of the problems that we're seeing in classrooms with violence, especially, you know, the kind of room clearing meltdowns where students kind of tear up the room.
i'm convinced that a good chunk of that is due to students being inappropriately placed in inclusive settings when they would really benefit again this is an iep team decision but they would really benefit from a smaller classroom with say six or eight students two or three adults and instead they're in an inclusion program that may not have enough support that probably has way too many kids and is always going to be overstimulating for that student and of course no two students are alike this is an iep team decision And because it's an IEP team decision, it is actually illegal to have a policy of 100% full inclusion.
Now, if you have students, if you happen to be in a small district and all of your students can have their needs met, that is their least restrictive environment to be in a full inclusion setting, okay, sure.
But if you have any number, of students who don't have full inclusion as their least restrictive environment.
Like, if that is not what the IEP team decides is best for that child, then it is illegal.
And it puzzles me that districts are so aggressively advocating for 100% full inclusion.
It's not working anywhere.
And it's not just not working because we're not doing it right.
It can't work.
If The student needs a smaller environment if they need a more specialized program.
I talk a lot about more specialized programs.
If that is what the child needs, full inclusion cannot work.
It cannot be the least restrictive environment.
So I think we've got to go back a little bit, not 50%, on this idea that special education is not a place, but it is sometimes a place.
It needs to be if we want to meet our students' needs and fulfill our obligations to them.
Let me know what you think.