The cult of educability: Searching for the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen

Kauffman, James M.; Krouse, James P.

doi:10.1016/0270-4684(81)90020-3

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is the danger that proposals such as ours will lend support to decreases in funding and services for all children. Current concern about the worth of education for the profoundly handicapped (Kauffman & Krouse, 1981) coupled with questions about the value of special education for the mildly handicapped (Lilly, 1982) could put all of special education in jeopardy. Special educators, who were only responding to the need to help children who were not learning, could be blamed for creating a system that does not work.…”

Section: Who Should Be Responsible For Those Children Who Do Not Belomentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Edgar

Hayden

1984

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the number of school-age children who need special education has been a persistent problem for many years. The crux of the problem is to clearly identify the population of children who are to be served by special education. A specific concern is OSE's use of the 12.035% prevalence figure for handicapping conditions and the implication that states not serving this percentage of school-age children are not in compliance with the law. A review of over 10,000 special education students indicates that about 1.6% of the total school-age population have quantifiable handicapping conditions. The remainder of the children served in special education have performance deficits. Perhaps special education is serving too many children with only performance deficits and by so doing is perpetuating the reluctance of regular education to alter instructional procedures for all children who are experiencing performance problems.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Be Responsible For Those Children Who Do Not Belomentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Edgar

Hayden

1984

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Controversy exists about whether the goal of early intervention with severely handicapped children is to accelerate the rate by which developmental skills are attained or to facilitate the acquisition of independence. Even more striking evidence of the lack of consensus on the content issue is seen in the debate on educability (Baer, 1981;Baumeister, 1981;Kauffman & Krouse, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Effective and Efficient Procedures for the Transfer of Stimulus Control

Wolery¹,

Gast

1984

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes and reviews procedures for transferring stimulus control. Assumptions for using these procedures are included. Four response prompting and two stimulus manipulation procedures are discussed. The response prompting procedures are most-to-least prompts, graduated guidance, system of least prompts, and time delay. The stimulus manipulation procedures are stimulus shaping and stimulus fading. Recommendations concerning the use of these procedures by teachers are made, and questions for further research are noted.Any educational endeavor from early intervention to personnel preparation implicitly or explicitly addresses issues such as (1) specifying the content of the curriculum, or determining what should be taught; (2) determining the match between learners' abilities and instructional activities, or assessment of learners' behavior in relation to the content of the curriculum; (3) manipulating environmental variables to provide effective and efficient acquisition of curricular content; and (4) ensuring the maintenance and generalization of acquired behaviors to situations other than the instructional environment. The manner in which each of these issues is addressed and the emphasis given to each vary with the philosophy of the TECSE 4(3), 52-77 (1984)

show abstract

“…Taylor (1988Taylor ( , 2001 noted several concerns with the continuum including, among others, that the continuum confuses segregation with intensity of services, and requires that individuals demonstrate 'readiness' to move from more to less restrictive settings. Arguably, aligned with this idea of the continuum requiring that an individual demonstrates competence in order to be placed in a less restrictive environment is an argument by Kauffman and Krouse (1981) that some students are uneducable and therefore not eligible for special education services, a position that illustrates Taylor's concern of the 'readiness' trap. But the debate over educability ended in 1989 with the First Circuit Court ruling in Timothy W. v. Rochester School District. In this case, the Rochester School District claimed that Timothy was 'too' disabled to benefit from special education, so the district should not be required to provide services.…”

Section: International Journal Of Inclusive Education 1037mentioning

confidence: 93%