Special Education Is Not a Place—It's a Promise We Must Keep
As a school administrator, I have spent years observing, learning, and challenging what is often an uncomfortable truth in our education system: special education is too often treated as a one-size-fits-all solution—a convenient detour rather than a deeply intentional support. And while we like to say that every child is unique, that truth somehow gets lost in the way we educate our most vulnerable learners.
Let’s be clear: giving a student an IEP and placing them in a special education class does not, in itself, solve anything. Too often, this is done not for the child’s benefit, but to “fix” a classroom management issue, to make things easier for teachers who feel ill-equipped to meet that child’s needs. It is a reactive move, not a proactive one. A child is struggling? “This isn’t the appropriate setting,” we hear. But the question that rarely follows is the most important one: What have I done to make this setting appropriate for this child?
When I was a young teacher, my principal would always say something that has stuck with me: Special education is a service, not a place. But are we living by that philosophy today? More often than not, I see that statement being disregarded. Instead of truly individualizing education, we label, we place, and we move on.
When I first became a principal of an early childhood setting, I was informed that I would be receiving four new special education classes. The expectation handed down to me was that these classes would follow the same "Units of Study" curriculum used by our general education Pre-K classrooms—designed for typically developing four- and five-year-olds. The problem? My incoming students were three to five years old with significant cognitive, physical, and emotional delays. How was it even remotely appropriate to ask educators to deliver the same curriculum to children with such profoundly different needs?
It wasn’t. And I knew it.
I met with my special education team immediately and said, “We will do things differently.” We would not allow the curriculum to lead our instruction; we would lead with the child. Instead of forcing abstract concepts onto children not yet ready to sit, attend, or even make eye contact, we started where they were. We focused on foundational, prerequisite skills—eye contact, receptive and expressive language, the ability to follow simple directions. The "Units of Study" became the backdrop, not the blueprint. They were the decoration. The real learning was in the skill-building.
In no time, the program gained attention—and not because we had more resources or better facilities than anyone else. We simply chose to think intentionally about every aspect of our approach. We put the child at the center. That is what made the difference.
Today, we live in an age where we have more tools than ever before. With the integration of AI, educators can now identify specific strategies tailored to a child’s strengths and needs—quickly and accurately. We can adapt instruction in real-time. We can analyze progress with nuance and clarity. The question is no longer can we differentiate? The question is will we?
So, here’s the call to action: let’s stop asking if a child belongs in a certain setting. Let’s start asking what we need to do to make that setting work for every child. Let’s honor the promise of special education not as a place to be sent, but as a support to be received. Let’s shift from compliance to commitment.
Every human being is unique. It’s time our education system truly reflected that—not just in theory, but in practice.