The Efficacy of Special Education Interventions and Practices: A Compendium of Meta-Analysis Findings

Abstract

Special education, by definition and in practice, serves an exceptional clientele, provides curricula, utilizes unique materials, and employs distinct methods and techniques for t(?aching. Although these characteristics set it apart, they also raise the question of how effective are the unique procedures used in special education. Mil of sky ( 1974) suggested that, despite the growth in special education over the last quarter century, the results have been less than special. The question: Is special education special?As a discipline, special education has produced a voluminous and variegated data base. The findings from individual studies have proved to be conflicting, variable, and sometimes paradoxical. Special education research, like other domains of inquiry, produces fragile findings. This should not be interpreted, however, to imply that special education research is either inconsequential or devoid of meaning . and inspiration ( Cruickshank, 1978). In fact, Light ( 1979) suggested that agreement in results may not always be the sought after goal, and variation in research findings should not be vilified but, rather, explicated for the possibility of finding important information.The findings from individual studies are best harnessed by systematic synthesis, not by proliferation of primary research. Knowledge must be cumulative, and if accumulated results can provide general and accurate conclusions, policy makers in special education will be in a position to implement decisions with confidence. METHODS OF RESEARCH SYNTHESISIn the past, research synthesis was shaped by the size of the research literature. For example, the question of the efficacy of special versus regular class placement Kenneth Kavale

Middle school teachers perspectives on inclusion: a qualitative study

“…The intent of this law was to ensure that all children, disabled or not, had access to a free and appropriate public education. However, dissatisfaction arose with the educational as well as social outcomes of exceptional, or special education students, who had been receiving these newly guaranteed services (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980;Edgar, 1987;Kavale & Glass, 1982; Texas Education Agency, 1991). A reexamination of the dual delivery system of general and special education was provoked by the Regular Education Initiative (REI), a reform proposed by Reynolds and Wang (1983).…”

“…The lack of a practical definition of mainstreaming confounded contemporary reform efforts, just as defining LRE in practical terms continues to plague educators in the 1990's as they attempt to include special education into the framework of current school-wide reform efforts. & Others, 1988;Carlberg & Kavale, 1980;Edgar, 1987;Glass, 1983;Hagerty & Abramson, 1987;Kavale & Glass, 1982;Reynolds & Wang, 1983, Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Christenson & Weiss, 1987 began to question the efficacy of segregated special education services that were developed in response to PL 94-142. Negative student outcomes on measures of academic achievement, student self-esteem and in post-high school employment opportunities were used as the basis for a call for a more extensive restructuring of special education.…”