Kimber Wilkerson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

A growing number of students in public schools – right now, about 15% of them – are eligible for special education services. These services include specially designed instruction for students with autism, learning or physical disabilities, or traumatic brain injuries. But going into the current school year, more than half of U.S. public schools anticipate being short-staffed in special education. Dr. Kimber Wilkerson, a professor of special education and department chair at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explains why there’s a shortage and what needs to be done to close the gap.

The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion, which have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Which students receive special education services?

Kimber Wilkerson: Students with a disability label receive special education services. They need these additional services and sometimes instruction in school so they can access the curriculum and thrive like their peers.

What is happening with staffing for special education?

Wilkerson: Since special education became a thing in the ’70s, there have always been challenges in filling all the special education positions.

In the past 10 years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, those challenges started to increase. There were more open positions in special education at the beginning of each school year than in previous decades. In the 2023-24 school year, 42 states plus the District of Columbia reported teacher shortages in special education.

What is causing these shortages?

Wilkerson: One, there are fewer young people choosing teaching as a major in college and as a profession. And special education is affected by these lower rates more than other forms of education.

Also, there’s more attrition – people leaving their teaching job sooner than you might expect – not because they’re retiring, but because they are tired of the job.

They want to do something different. They want to go back to school. Sometimes it’s life circumstances, but the number of people leaving the job before retirement age has increased. And in our state, Wisconsin, about 35% of all educators leave the field before they hit their fifth year.

That number is even higher for special educators. About half of special educators are out of the profession within five years.

Why do special education teachers leave the profession?

Wilkerson: There’s not a national study that speaks to that reason. There are some localized studies, and people report things like too much paperwork or too many administrative tasks associated with the job. Sometimes they report the students’ behavioral challenges. Sometimes it’s a feeling of isolation, or a lack of support from the school.

How are students with disabilities affected when their school does not have enough special educators?

Wilkerson: In a school that’s one special educator short, the other special educators have to take over that caseload. Instead of having 12 students on their caseload, maybe now they have 20. So, the amount of individual attention given to each student with a disability decreases.

Also, when teachers with experience leave the profession, they leave behind a less experienced group of teachers. This means the students are losing out on the benefit of those years of wisdom and experience.

What are some strategies to recruit and retain more special education teachers?

Wilkerson: There’s a range of strategies that different universities, states and school districts have taken, like residency programs.

In these programs, the person who is learning to be a teacher, and who is referred to as a teaching resident, works alongside a mentor teacher for an entire year in a school, and they get paid to do so. They’re not the teacher of record, but they’re learning and getting paid, and they’re in that school community.

Can you tell us about your recent study on supporting new special education teachers?

Wilkerson: One thing that made a big difference is when the teachers in our study, which is now under review, had access to a mentor and a group of their peers. We called this facilitated peer-to-peer group of teachers a “community of practice.” Every other week, on Zoom, we’d get these new special education teachers from different school districts together, along with experienced teachers. And they would do some sort of work on problems, bringing in the things that were challenging, and work on possible solutions as a group.

We also used Zoom to do one-on-one mentoring. And what people liked about it was that they could talk to someone who wasn’t right in their building and right in their district who they could be open and vulnerable with.

Sometimes, special educators can be isolated because they’re not necessarily a part of a grade-level team. They work with kids across a lot of classrooms. This gave them an opportunity to have their own kind of community, and that made a difference.

We also surveyed their level of burnout and how good they felt about the job they did. And then we surveyed special education teachers who weren’t participating in our community of practice.

At the end of the year, those people who had that mentoring and the community of practice felt less burnt out, and they also felt more effective in the area of classroom management. And that’s critical, because burnout is one of the primary reasons people leave the profession.

So if we can make people feel like they’re better equipped to handle this challenging position, then that’s one strategy to increase the number of people wanting to stay in their job year after year.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Kimber Wilkerson, Professor of Special Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Anjana Susarla, Michigan State University

It’s not surprising that technology regulation is an important issue in the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign.

The past decade has seen advanced technologies, from social media algorithms to large language model artificial intelligence systems, profoundly affect society. These changes, which spanned the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations, spurred calls for the federal government to regulate the technologies and the powerful corporations that wield them.

As a researcher of information systems and AI, I examined both candidates’ records on technology regulation. Here are the important differences.

Algorithmic harms

With artificial intelligence now widespread, governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate various aspects of the technology. The candidates offer different visions for U.S. AI policy. One area where there is a stark difference is in recognizing and addressing algorithmic harms from the widespread use of AI technology.

AI affects your life in ways that might escape your notice. Biases in algorithms used for lending and hiring decisions could end up reinforcing a vicious cycle of discrimination. For example, a student who can’t get a loan for college would then be less likely to get the education needed to pull herself out of poverty.

At the AI Safety Summit in the U.K. in November 2023, Harris spoke of the promise of AI but also the perils from algorithmic bias, deepfakes and wrongful arrests. Biden signed an executive order on AI on Oct. 30, 2023, that recognized AI systems can pose unacceptable risks of harm to civil and human rights and individual well-being. In parallel, federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission have carried out enforcement actions to guard against algorithmic harms.

By contrast, the Trump administration did not take a public stance on mitigation of algorithmic harms. Trump has said he wants to repeal President Biden’s AI executive order. In recent interviews, however, Trump noted the dangers from technologies such as deepfakes and challenges posed to security from AI systems, suggesting a willingness to engage with the growing risks from AI.

Technological standards

The Trump administration signed the American AI Initiative executive order on Feb. 11, 2019. The order pledged to double AI research investment and established the first set of national AI research institutes. The order also included a plan for AI technical standards and established guidance for the federal government’s use of AI. Trump also signed an executive order on Dec. 3, 2020, promoting the use of trustworthy AI in the federal government.

The Biden-Harris administration has tried to go further. Harris convened the heads of Google, Microsoft and other tech companies at the White House on May 4, 2023, to undertake a set of voluntary commitments to safeguard individual rights. The Biden administration’s executive order contains an important initiative to probe the vulnerablity of very large-scale, general-purpose AI models trained on massive amounts of data. The goal is to determine the risks hackers pose to these models, including the ones that power OpenAI’s popular ChatGPT and DALL-E.

Antitrust

Antitrust law enforcement – restricting or conditioning mergers and acquisitions – is another way the federal government regulates the technology industry.

The Trump administration’s antitrust dossier includes its attempt to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner. The merger was eventually allowed by a federal judge after the FTC under the Trump administration filed a suit to block the deal. The Trump administration also filed an antitrust case against Google focused on its dominance in internet search.

Biden signed an executive order on July 9, 2021, to enforce antitrust laws arising from the anticompetitive effects of dominant internet platforms. The order also targeted the acquisition of nascent competitors, the aggregation of data, unfair competition in attention markets and the surveillance of users. The Biden-Harris administration has filed antitrust cases against Apple and Google.

The Biden-Harris administration’s merger guidelines in 2023 outlined rules to determine when mergers can be considered anticompetitive. While both administrations filed antitrust cases, the Biden administration’s antitrust push appears stronger in terms of its impact in potentially reorganizing or even orchestrating a breakup of dominant companies such as Google.

Cryptocurrency

The candidates have different approaches to cryptocurrency regulation. Late in his administration, Trump tweeted in support of cryptocurrency regulation. Also late in Trump’s administration, the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network proposed regulations that would have required financial firms to collect the identity of any cryptocurrency wallet to which a user sent funds. The regulations were not enacted.

Trump has since shifted his position on cryptocurrencies. He has criticized existing U.S. laws and called for the United States to be a Bitcoin superpower. The Trump campaign is the first presidential campaign to accept payments in cryptocurrencies.

The Biden-Harris administration, by contrast, has laid out regulatory restrictions on cryptocurrencies with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which brought about a series of enforcement actions. The White House vetoed the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act that aimed to clarify accounting for cryptocurrencies, a bill favored by the cryptocurrency industry.

Data privacy

Biden’s AI executive order calls on Congress to adopt privacy legislation, but it does not provide a legislative framework to do so. The Trump White House’s American AI Initiative executive order mentions privacy only in broad terms, calling for AI technologies to uphold “civil liberties, privacy, and American values.” The order did not mention how existing privacy protections would be enforced.

Across the U.S., several states have tried to pass legislation addressing aspects of data privacy. At present, there is a patchwork of statewide initiatives and a lack of comprehensive data privacy legislation at the federal level.

The paucity of federal data privacy protections is a stark reminder that while the candidates are addressing some of the challenges posed by developments in AI and technology more broadly, a lot still remains to be done to regulate technology in the public interest.

Overall, the Biden administration’s efforts at antitrust and technology regulation seem broadly aligned with the goal of reining in technology companies and protecting consumers. It’s also reimagining monopoly protections for the 21st century. This seems to be the chief difference between the two administrations.

Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sarah Kollat, Penn State

Fall for me as a teenager meant football games, homecoming dresses – and haunted houses. My friends organized group trips to the local fairground, where barn sheds were turned into halls of horror, and masked men nipped at our ankles with (chainless) chain saws as we waited in line, anticipating deeper frights to come once we were inside.

I’m not the only one who loves a good scare. Halloween attractions company America Haunts estimates Americans are spending upward of US$500 million annually on haunted house entrance fees simply for the privilege of being frightened. And lots of fright fans don’t limit their horror entertainment to spooky season, gorging horror movies, shows and books all year long.

To some people, this preoccupation with horror can seem tone deaf. School shootings, child abuse, war – the list of real-life horrors is endless. Why seek manufactured fear for entertainment when the world offers real terror in such large quantities?

As a developmental psychologist who writes dark thrillers on the side, I find the intersection of psychology and fear intriguing. To explain what drives this fascination with fear, I point to the theory that emotions evolved as a universal experience in humans because they help us survive. Creating fear in otherwise safe lives can be enjoyable – and is a way for people to practice and prepare for real-life dangers.

Fear can feel good

Controlled fear experiences – where you can click your remote, close the book, or walk out of the haunted house whenever you want – offer the physiological high that fear triggers, without any real risk.

When you perceive yourself under threat, adrenaline surges in your body and the evolutionary fight-or-flight response is activated. Your heart rate increases, you breathe deeper and faster, and your blood pressure goes up. Your body is preparing to defend itself against the danger or get away as fast as possible.

This physical reaction is crucial when facing a real threat. When experiencing controlled fear – like jump scares in a zombie TV show – you get to enjoy this energized sensation, similar to a runner’s high, without any risks. And then, once the threat is dealt with, your body releases the neurotransmitter dopamine, which provides sensations of pleasure and relief.

In one study, researchers found that people who visited a high-intensity haunted house as a controlled fear experience displayed less brain activity in response to stimuli and less anxiety post-exposure. This finding suggests that exposing yourself to horror films, scary stories or suspenseful video games can actually calm you afterward. The effect might also explain why my husband and I choose to relax by watching zombie shows after a busy day at work.

The ties that bind

An essential motivation for human beings is the sense of belonging to a social group. According to the surgeon general, Americans who miss those connections are caught up in an epidemic of loneliness, which leaves people at risk for mental and physical health issues.

Going through intense fear experiences together strengthens the bonds between individuals. Good examples include veterans who served together in combat, survivors of natural disasters, and the “families” created in groups of first responders.

I’m a volunteer firefighter, and the unique connection created through sharing intense threats, such as entering a burning building together, manifests in deep emotional bonds with my colleagues. After a significant fire call, we often note the improved morale and camaraderie of the firehouse. I feel a flood of positive emotions anytime I think of my firefighting partners, even when the events occurred months or years ago.

Controlled fear experiences artificially create similar opportunities for bonding. Exposure to stress triggers not only the fight-or-flight response, but in many situations it also initiates what psychologists call the “tend-and-befriend” system. A perceived threat prompts humans to tend to offspring and create social-emotional bonds for protection and comfort. This system is largely regulated by the so-called “love hormone” oxytocin.

The tend-and-befriend reaction is particularly likely when you experience stress around others with whom you have already established positive social connections. When you encounter stressors within your social network, your oxytocin levels rise to initiate social coping strategies. As a result, when you navigate a recreational fear experience like a haunted house with friends, you are setting the emotional stage to feel bonded with the people beside you.

Sitting in the dark with friends while you watch a scary movie or navigating a haunted corn maze with a date is good for your health, in that it helps you strengthen those social connections.

An ounce of prevention = a pound of cure

Controlled fear experiences can also be a way for you to prepare for the worst. Think of the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the films “Contagion” and “Outbreak” trended on streaming platforms as people around the world sheltered at home. By watching threat scenarios play out in controlled ways through media, you can learn about your fears and emotionally prepare for future threats.

For example, researchers at Aarhus University’s Recreational Fear Lab in Denmark demonstrated in one study that people who regularly consumed horror media were more psychologically resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic than nonhorror fans. The scientists suggest that this resilience might be a result of a kind of training these fans went through – they practiced coping with the fear and anxiety provoked by their preferred form of entertainment. As a result, they were better prepared to manage the real fear triggered by the pandemic.

When I’m not teaching, I’m an avid reader of crime fiction. I also write psychological thrillers under the pen name Sarah K. Stephens. As both a reader and writer, I notice similar themes in the books I am drawn to, all of which tie into my own deep-rooted fears: mothers who fail their children somehow, women manipulated into subservience, lots of misogynist antagonists.

I enjoy writing and reading about my fears – and seeing the bad guys get their just desserts in the end – because it offers a way for me to control the story. Consuming these narratives lets me mentally rehearse how I would handle these kinds of circumstances if any were to manifest in my real life.

Survive and thrive

In the case of controlled fear experiences, scaring yourself is a pivotal technique to help you survive and adapt in a frightening world. By eliciting powerful, positive emotions, strengthening social networks and preparing you for your worst fears, you’re better able to embrace each day to its fullest.

So the next time you’re choosing between an upbeat comedy and a creepy thriller for your movie night, pick the dark side – it’s good for your health.

Sarah Kollat, Teaching Professor of Psychology, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.