Commentary: Today's Special Education and Its Messages for Tomorrow

Abstract

Ten characterizations of contemporary special education and five major implications for the future of the field are offered. Special education today is characterized as (a) ignorant of history, (b) apologetic for existing, (c) preoccupied with image, (d) lost in space, (e) unrealistic in expectations, (f) unprepared to focus on teaching and learning, (g) unaware of sociopolitical drift, (h) mesmerized by postmodernist/deconstructionist inanities, (i) an easy target for scam artists, and (j) immobilized by anticipation of systemic transformation. The implications are (a) changes in the boundaries of special education, (b) shifts in service delivery patterns and staffing patterns for special educators and in special education's relationship to general education, (c) changes in state standards and patterns of funding for special education and in personnel preparation, (d) additional changes in state and federal legislation and regulation, and (e) possible loss of special education's focus on the scientific understanding of instruction. A final note of optimism is offered, as special education is a relatively young profession with a history that includes reliable research and considerable capacity for self-correction. We could turn our attention unambiguously and forcefully to empirical research—generating reliable common knowledge of effective instruction of students with disabilities.

Ethics and Special Education

“…The empirical case has been debated pro and con (Danforth, 1997;Fuchs & Fuchs, 1995;Carnine, 1991;Gartner & Lipsky, 1987;Stainback & Stainback, 1992;Kauffman, 1999). Although the empirical response is necessarily part of an answer, it is far from sufficient.…”

“…Can an adequate account of a child's success in school be given in objective terms, or is it so embedded in experience and culture that only narrative accounts are meaningful? These and other epistemological questions have been raised in limited ways within special education over the past decade (Danforth, 1995;Gallagher, 1998;Kauffman, 1999;Reid, Robinson, & Bunsen, 1995) and debates have been difficult and, at times, even rancorous. Those defending more traditional positivist understandings are concerned about relativism and the practical implications of nonpositivist epistemologies for teaching children with disabilities (Kauffman, 1999;Sasso, 2001).…”

“…Having grown out of psychology and medicine, special education researchers were concerned with the learning and behavioral characteristics of children and interventions to address their needs. Notwithstanding, some important work dating back to the 1980s (lano, 1986;Heshusius, 1989) and early 1990s (Skrtic, 1991) challenging the dominant philosophy of research in special education, most special education researchers, especially in the fields of behavior disorders and learning disabilities, generally have maintained a strong commitment to a positivist epistemology (Kauffman, 1999;Sasso, 2001) Special education researchers, guided by a well developed and robust philosophy of behavior, generated a substantial knowledge base of technologies for defining and engineering change in behavior. The behavioral philosophy served the field well in the late 1960s, 1970s, and into the 1980s (and many would argue that it continues to serve the field well).…”

A Small Special Needs Class or a Smaller Class at the Beginning of the Educational Path?

“…Earlier research results of the integration vary for and against. (See Skårbrevik 2005;Naukkarinen 2005;Haapaniemi 2003;Kuorelahti 2000;Kauffman 1999.) If necessary, the pupil can stay in the small class for the whole time they are in the 1-2 grades.…”

“…) According to the studies, the investment in special needs education does not always guarantee more intensive teaching than general education for the pupil (Kauffman & Pullen 1996, 6-7;Kuorelahti 2000.) Kauffman (1999) and Martin (1997) emphasize that some of the pupils who have learning difficulties could study also in the general education with sufficient support services. However, they state that teaching of all the pupils who suffer from learning difficulties cannot be organized in the general education because the mere physical participation in the general education does not guarantee an educational inclusion.…”