The Philosophy of Homework in Special Education: When Accommodations and Equity Collide
Homework has long been a staple of traditional education in the Global North, seen as a tool for reinforcing lessons learned in the classroom. However, when it comes to special education, the role of homework becomes more complex, especially for students with Individualised Education Programs (IEPs). These students require tailored accommodations that consider their unique learning needs, yet homework often remains a one-size-fits-all assignment, potentially undermining the very supports designed to ensure their educational success. In many cases, homework assigned to students with IEPs can violate the accommodations laid out in their plans, placing undue stress on learners who may lack the necessary resources and support at home to complete the work effectively.
To examine this issue, it is important to explore the problem through the lenses of Critical Theory and the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF). Critical Theory helps us to understand how educational practices, such as homework, can reinforce existing power dynamics and inequities, particularly in underserved communities. The PTMF, which focuses on understanding how systemic structures can create threats to individuals’ well-being, offers a way to view homework as a potential source of harm when it fails to align with the principles of equitable education. Today’s article argues that homework, when it does not contribute to meaningful learning and contradicts the accommodations agreed upon in a student's IEP, not only undermines the purpose of the IEP but also perpetuates inequity in education, particularly in Title 1 settings where students often face additional socio-economic barriers.
Background: The Purpose of an IEP
An IEP is a legal document (a contract) designed to ensure that students with disabilities receive the tailored instruction, services, and supports they need to access education on an equitable basis. Legally mandated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the IEP is intended to bridge the gap between general education and the unique needs of students by providing accommodations, modifications, and specialised instruction. The Resource Specialist Program (RSP) plays a vital role in this process, offering students additional academic support in areas where they struggle most. These supports are not simply “extra help,” but rather essential tools meant to level the educational playing field.
However, despite the clear legal and philosophical mandate of IEPs, they are often overlooked or poorly implemented in mainstream settings. Schools, burdened by systemic underfunding, frequently leave the responsibility of fulfilling these legally binding documents to under-resourced and under-prepared teachers. This can result in IEPs being treated as an afterthought, rather than as a foundational element of the student’s educational experience. Teachers, many of whom have little training in special education, are tasked with navigating complex IEP requirements on top of managing their general classroom responsibilities. Parents, trusting that schools will honour the provisions of the IEP, are often unaware that many schools fail to implement them with fidelity, a fact underscored by the growing number of lawsuits filed against school districts for non-compliance.
In this climate, teachers like me, with special education credentials, are both rare and highly sought after, yet the pay and working conditions do not reflect the complexity or demands of the role. This imbalance perpetuates the ongoing shortage of qualified staff, leaving students with IEPs underserved and further entrenching the inequities the IEPs are meant to address. The philosophical purpose of an IEP—to ensure equity in education—becomes hollow when its execution is so often left to the discretion of overburdened and under-supported teachers.
Philosophical Contradictions of Homework in Special Education
The concept of “meaningful learning” is central to the philosophical purpose of an IEP. It refers to learning that is tailored to the individual student’s needs, ensuring they can access education in ways that work best for them. For students with IEPs, this often includes specific accommodations that modify the way lessons are delivered, assessed, and reinforced. Homework, in this context, should be an extension of these tailored learning experiences. However, when homework is not modified to reflect the accommodations outlined in the IEP, it can quickly become a barrier rather than a tool for reinforcing learning.
When homework tasks are assigned without considering a student’s accommodations—such as reduced workload or alternative formats—it can contradict the very goals of the IEP. This not only risks frustrating the student but can also turn homework into an exercise in failure rather than learning. Critical Theory challenges the notion that education should be “one size fits all.” Homework that is universally assigned, without modifications, reflects this outdated model of education, where students are expected to conform to rigid standards. For students with IEPs, this expectation is not only inequitable but can actively harm their learning experience.
The PTMF offers further insight into how such practices can be detrimental. From the PTMF perspective, homework that disregards accommodations may become a source of stress or even perceived as a “threat” to the student’s well-being and autonomy. If parents are unable to provide the necessary support at home—whether due to lack of resources, understanding, or time—homework can further alienate the student from their own learning process. In this light, homework that does not align with IEP goals undermines not only academic progress but also the student's sense of competence and self-worth, perpetuating the inequities the IEP is meant to address (Bryan & Burstein, 2004; Tomlinson, 1988; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2005; Cooper & Nye, 1994; Dettmers et al., 2010).
Homework as Punishment: A Misuse of Educational Tools
Assigning homework as a form of punishment for incomplete classwork is a common, yet deeply problematic, practice in many classrooms. This approach, rooted in the legacy of behaviorism, is intended to reinforce power relationships between teacher and student. The logic is simple: by making students complete extra work outside of class as a consequence of not finishing in class, the teacher hopes to correct the student’s behaviour, thus avoiding the need for future punitive homework. However, this practice fails to consider the underlying reasons why students—especially those with learning disabilities—may struggle to complete their work in the classroom in the first place.
For students with IEPs, homework as punishment can be particularly damaging. When these students are assigned additional tasks to complete at home, they are often expected to do so without the critical SPED support that is available during school hours. Completing unfinished assignments, practice problems, or writing tasks such as “write an essay on why this won’t happen again in class” at home shifts the responsibility of learning from the structured, supported environment of the classroom to an unsupported one. Without the necessary accommodations, such as scaffolded instructions, assistive technology, or modified tasks, the homework becomes a barrier to success rather than a pathway for learning. This disproportionally affects students with learning disabilities, as the assignments were not designed with their specific needs in mind, leading to a cycle of frustration, disengagement, and failure.
Critical Theory offers a powerful lens through which to critique this practice. Punitive measures, such as assigning homework as punishment, serve to reinforce existing power dynamics in the classroom, where the teacher maintains control and students are expected to conform to the imposed rules or face consequences. For students with disabilities, this power imbalance is even more pronounced, as their needs are often overlooked or minimised in the name of classroom management. This creates a system where students with disabilities are punished not for defiance or lack of effort but for the systemic failure to accommodate their learning styles and needs.
Moreover, the use of homework as punishment perpetuates educational inequities, particularly for students from underserved communities, who may lack the necessary support at home. For many Title 1 students, home environments are not equipped with the resources—be it parental assistance, internet access, or quiet spaces for studying—that are often required to successfully complete assignments. In this way, homework as punishment becomes another layer of inequity, further marginalizing those who are already disadvantaged within the education system. Rather than serving as a tool for learning, it becomes a tool of oppression, reinforcing the very inequities that educational policies like IEPs are meant to address.
The Reality in Title 1 Settings
Students in Title 1 schools face significant socio-economic challenges that directly impact their ability to complete homework, particularly those with IEPs. These schools, by definition, serve communities with high levels of poverty, where families often struggle to meet basic needs. In many cases, parents work multiple jobs, often outside the home, leaving them with little time or energy to assist their children with schoolwork. Additionally, these families may lack disposable income to invest in educational resources such as computers, reliable internet access, or even quiet spaces where students can concentrate on their assignments. The local economy drives the designation of Title 1, and its effects are deeply felt in the households of the students who attend these schools.
This lack of support at home creates a significant barrier to completing homework, especially for students with IEPs. Without the necessary resources and parental involvement, students are left to manage their assignments on their own. For students with learning disabilities, this often means attempting to navigate complex tasks without the accommodations or modifications they rely on during the school day. As a result, homework becomes another point of failure, reinforcing the educational inequities that the IEP was designed to address.
Through the lens of the PTMF, these challenges can be understood as systemic oppression. The structural inequalities that define Title 1 schools—underfunded education systems, limited resources for families, and overburdened parents—create a cycle of disadvantage for students with IEPs. Homework, which is intended to be a tool for reinforcing learning, instead becomes a manifestation of these larger systemic issues, perpetuating the marginalisation of already vulnerable students.
Alternatives to Homework for Students with IEPs
Whilst the need for practice to support retention and mastery of subject matter is clear, the traditional model of homework as a means of achieving this is not a one-size-fits-all solution—particularly for students with IEPs in Title 1 schools. These students often face barriers at home that make completing homework not just difficult but inequitable. Given these realities, it’s time to reimagine how we reinforce learning for students with IEPs.
One alternative is to eliminate or significantly adapt homework in ways that align with the accommodations outlined in IEPs. For example, schools could provide in-class time for students to practice skills with the support of educators and special education staff. This ensures that students are practicing in an environment that understands and responds to their individual needs. For students who do take work home, assignments can be modified to fit within their capacity, considering the accommodations they rely on during the school day. This might mean shorter tasks, alternative formats, or projects that allow for creative expression, all of which can reinforce learning without overwhelming the student.
However, homework, in its current form, needs more than adaptation—it needs a complete overhaul in Title 1 settings. Partnerships with non-profit organisations can be a critical part of reimagining how practice and skill development are supported. After-school programs run in collaboration with these organisations could provide tutoring, homework help, and even vocational development opportunities, ensuring that students have the support they need to succeed academically. These programs could also serve as safe spaces for students, alleviating the burden on working parents who might not be able to afford after-school care. Such programs wouldn’t just be beneficial for the students; they would also offer relief for families, reducing the stress of balancing multiple jobs and childcare.
In this reimagined approach, school administrators must take the lead in forming these partnerships. By connecting with local non-profits and community organisations, they can help create environments where all students, especially those with IEPs, have access to the resources and support they need to thrive. In doing so, schools can ensure that educational equity extends beyond the classroom, giving all students an opportunity to practice and master the skills necessary for success in ways that respect their unique challenges.
Final thoughts …
In light of the challenges explored, it is clear that homework, as traditionally conceived, does not meet the needs of all students—particularly those with IEPs. These students often face compounded difficulties, including insufficient support at home and accommodations that are ignored once they leave the school environment. The philosophical purpose of an IEP is to provide equitable access to education, yet when homework does not align with a student’s individualised needs, it contradicts this very mission. The reality in Title 1 schools further complicates the issue, as students in these communities often lack the resources, time, and parental support needed to successfully complete homework, rendering it an additional burden rather than a meaningful learning tool.
We must rethink homework policies to better align with the needs of students with IEPs. Critical Theory urges us to question traditional educational practices, like universal homework assignments, that reinforce inequities and maintain power structures. By applying this lens, we can begin to see how homework, as it is currently implemented, serves to perpetuate the marginalization of students who already face systemic challenges. Similarly, the PTMF helps us understand the deeper emotional and psychological impacts that homework can have when it is not adapted to students’ needs, framing it as a potential source of harm rather than a neutral educational tool.
The call to action is clear: educators, administrators, and policymakers must reflect on the use of homework through these critical lenses. Homework must be reimagined in a way that prioritises equity and respects the individual needs of students with IEPs. This may involve creating in-school opportunities for practice, fostering partnerships with community organisations to provide after-school support, or even eliminating traditional homework altogether in favor of more adaptive and supportive methods. By doing so, we can create a more equitable educational system—one that truly honours the purpose of an IEP and meets students where they are.