As the debate surrounding the future of special education services continues in the US, navigating potential solutions warrants a balanced, impartial view accounting for all perspectives and interests at play. Unfortunately, a recent article from The Hechinger Report touting tele-therapy crosses ethical lines in this regard. Whilst the piece brings attention to the very real staffing shortages many schools face, including my own, it plays into advertorial territory by providing what effectively amounts to a promotional, conflict-ridden endorsement of this commercial offering without the necessary objectivity or transparency.
This article brings an important issue to light, however it fails to provide a balanced, objective view. Rather, it reads much like a promotional advert for tele-therapy services. Whilst the author, Kate Eberle Walker, addresses the very real challenges schools face in providing adequate special education services, her solution conveniently aligns with the commercial interests of her role as CEO of Presence, a tele-therapy provider.
The article relies heavily on positive anecdotes and data stemming directly from the author's own company, with no external analysis provided. It frames tele-therapy as the solution to systemic shortages, glossing over any limitations or more nuanced policy critiques. Furthermore, Walker's significant conflict of interest should have been disclosed up front by The Hechinger Report. Framing this piece as an advertorial / sponsored content authored by an industry leader rather than a standard news report would have offered necessary context.
Providing information on an emerging commercial model could prove useful for schools struggling to meet student needs. However, this article's lack of impartiality and omission of the author’s clear vested interests in the promoted solution fail to meet standards for balanced journalism. More transparency regarding the potential advertorial nature of discussing one’s own commercial offerings would have better served readers. Moving forward, The Hechinger Report must take care to vet and contextualize pieces that may blur the line between reporting and native advertising.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Telehealth as a solution to the crisis in SpEd?
Telehealth as a solution to the crisis in SpEd?
Telehealth as a solution to the crisis in SpEd?
As the debate surrounding the future of special education services continues in the US, navigating potential solutions warrants a balanced, impartial view accounting for all perspectives and interests at play. Unfortunately, a recent article from The Hechinger Report touting tele-therapy crosses ethical lines in this regard. Whilst the piece brings attention to the very real staffing shortages many schools face, including my own, it plays into advertorial territory by providing what effectively amounts to a promotional, conflict-ridden endorsement of this commercial offering without the necessary objectivity or transparency.
This article brings an important issue to light, however it fails to provide a balanced, objective view. Rather, it reads much like a promotional advert for tele-therapy services. Whilst the author, Kate Eberle Walker, addresses the very real challenges schools face in providing adequate special education services, her solution conveniently aligns with the commercial interests of her role as CEO of Presence, a tele-therapy provider.
The article relies heavily on positive anecdotes and data stemming directly from the author's own company, with no external analysis provided. It frames tele-therapy as the solution to systemic shortages, glossing over any limitations or more nuanced policy critiques. Furthermore, Walker's significant conflict of interest should have been disclosed up front by The Hechinger Report. Framing this piece as an advertorial / sponsored content authored by an industry leader rather than a standard news report would have offered necessary context.
Providing information on an emerging commercial model could prove useful for schools struggling to meet student needs. However, this article's lack of impartiality and omission of the author’s clear vested interests in the promoted solution fail to meet standards for balanced journalism. More transparency regarding the potential advertorial nature of discussing one’s own commercial offerings would have better served readers. Moving forward, The Hechinger Report must take care to vet and contextualize pieces that may blur the line between reporting and native advertising.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.