This indictment of acronyms reminds me of a panel I saw at one of the fabulous CADRE conferences a few years back. The panel was a success story type of panel - young successful adults who had previously been special education students. One criticism that was unanimous among the panel members was that special ed professionals use too many acronyms.
You know what they mean. IDEA requires that FAPE be provided in the LRE, using an IEP with a possible fba and a bip. Not to mention SLD, ODD, ED,ADHD, RtI, PT, OT...
But an interesting wrinkle on the topic acronyms involves an ethical dimension. A speaker at last year's NAHO conference suggested that the use of legalese in public documents is an ethical issue. He posited that people should be able to understand public documents. Is this also true of acronyms? Should we avoid the acronym trap in hearing decisions and procedural safeguards booklets? What are your thoughts?
------- Thanks for subscribing! Jim Gerl