Future Directions for Special Education: Beyond a Diagnostic and Remedial Model

Abstract

For the past 15-20 years, educators have certainly been aware of and perhaps alarmed by the proliferation of &dquo;special&dquo; people and &dquo;special&dquo; programs in education. When I left public education in southern California in 1962, as the school psychologist for an elementary school district, I was in charge of 14 special programs for supposedly special children. Since there are numerous &dquo;soft&dquo; signs that the well which nurtured many of these programs may be drying up, now might be the appropriate time for special education to identify just what makes it special and to see if these criteria support all of its present activities in the field.Dr. Newcomer's paper concerns itself, primarily, with a population of children in special education programs whom she refers to as &dquo;simply 'out of step' in school usually due to difficulty with academic achievement.&dquo; The thrust of her paper is towards an operational model for special education which will better accommodate the educational needs of this group. It will be my position here that: (a) Her description of the population indicates these children have primarily instructional disabilities and, therefore, are the responsibility of the classroom teacher and the instructional specialists, not the special educator. (b) Her model would serve to increase the plethora of consultants who already either take too much of the teacher's time, making too many demands upon her, or give her another reason to.abdicate her responsibility for instructing the child. (c) The roles defined by Newcomer's model overlap with those of consultants already in the schools, e.g., school psychologists, remedial instructors, elementary guidance counselors, social workers. THE DIAGNOSTIC-REMEDIAL MODEL AND THEEDUCATIONALLY OUT-OF-STEP -In Newcomer's discussion of the diagnostic-remedial approach we must keep in mind that her concern is with its application to the &dquo;educationally out-ofstep&dquo; children and not those traditionally encompassed by special education. She has done a good job in summarizing present research regarding several of the more commonly used diagnostic instruments. Although I would claim serious limitations in the types of research which have been done, her article still reflects the outcomes of the typical uses being made of these instruments. Her findings are an excellent caution for those using such tests for educational planning.

Who Are the Children Special Education Should Serve and How Many Children Are There?

“…Finally, there is this problem: to distinguish between emotionally disturbed, mildly retarded, and learning disabled children is almost an impossibility. Indeed, the literature is replete with statements that these three groups represent essentially the same population (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1978;Hewett & Forness, 1977;Lilly, 1977;Oldridge, 1977).…”