Search results

We present and explain several reasons that special education as a field has not been served well by the lessons of our history, but has the extraordinary opportunity, if not responsibility, to learn from history and use these lessons to guide practice. Our premises include (a) special educators may be less aware of their past than professionals in other disciplines, and thus less likely to build on this past; (b) given the relatively short history of the field as we know it today, we have access to many leaders who shaped policy and practice in special education; and (c) special education faces crossroads in many respects, and these have the potential to drastically re-shape or re-define special education. As such, we believe that contextualizing our present and future direction in an understanding of our past is critical now more than ever.

This chapter addresses emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in the larger context of special education. The author suggests that EBD, like special education more generally, has been distracted by issues such as labeling, disproportionality, and inclusion rather than keeping a clear focus on instruction. Revisionist history has led to misunderstanding of what special education is and does. A more promising future for the field depends on focusing on instruction, embracing scientific research, developing checklists and manuals to guide practice that are based on scientific evidence whenever possible, working for sustained student success, and using language more carefully and precisely.

Critical theory integrates the value of social justice into the practice of research and focuses on the manner in which injustice and subjugation shape peoples’ experience and understanding of the world (Endres, 1997). A critical theory perspective is specifically concerned with issues of power and justice and the ways that the economy, race, class, gender, ideologies, discourses, education, religion, disability, and other social institutions interact to construct a social system (Kellner, 2003). Thus, critical inquiry must be connected to attempts to confront injustices of society. Clearly, an effective history of special education law can better illuminate some of the injustices commonly experienced by students with disabilities. However, the majority of school administrators and directors of student services and special education have viewed special education regulations through a positivist lens. Skrtic (1995) contended that although positivism has been discredited, it is still the theory of knowledge used in modern professionalism (including education, special education, and other social sciences). Professional knowledge in this positivist framework is received and perceived by students as objective truth because the scientific process remains the mechanism for discovering and applying new knowledge. Society affords professionals autonomy on the assumption that professionals, by virtue of their access to specialized knowledge, know what is best for their clients. In a type of moebius loop construction, only the professionals can judge what is best for their clients because they are the only ones with access to the specialized knowledge. This knowledge, frequently based on “traditional” histories, becomes the pervasive, professional knowledge employed in practice. Thus, it is essential to understand the assumptions inherent in this knowledge base.

Concern about special education's future is widespread. Now there are calls for special education's abandonment or its nonexistence in any environment other than general education (i.e., for full inclusion or some form of general education only). Some advocates for reform consider special education obsolete, to be rejected in favor of newer ideas known as inclusionary education, and they advocate abandoning special education.

Now may be the time for a second revolution in thinking about what special education is and does so that it evolves into a service that more consistently realizes its promise. Special education is likely to become extinct if its devolution continues. Its collapse would hasten the abandonment of public education. Alternatively, it could evolve to become a viable part of public education, a distinct entity, a clearly identifiable and viable part of educating all children appropriately in public schools.

Among the many causes of special education's devolution, some stand out prominently: (1) confusing must and may; (2) accepting illogic and imprecision of language; (3) responding to all diversities in the same way; (4) spurning science; (5) confusing attribute and person; (6) putting the worst possible face on special education; and (7) misconstruing least restrictive environment.

Better thinking and clearer communication are required to achieve special education's revitalization. These include calling things what they are and relying on new, younger leaders. Clear and wide understanding – consensus – about what special education is and does and acceptance of the idea that we must have it as a separate and distinct part of universal public education would be revolutionary.

Over the course of several decades, the field of bilingual special education has found much support in the reform movement that has become known as multicultural education. Born out of the 1960s civil rights movement (Mclaren & Muñoz, 2000), multicultural education “is a field in education that is dedicated to equal opportunity for all students. Even groups who appear to be monocultural are diverse in regards to class, gender, and language” (Ooka Pang, 2005, p. 213). Multicultural education “assumes that race, ethnicity, culture, and social class are salient parts of U.S. society. It also assumes that ethnic and cultural diversity enriches the nation and increases the ways in which its citizens can perceive and solve personal and public problems” (Banks, 2002, p. 1). Thus, multicultural education supports the call for bilingual special education in teacher preparation and in schools. For special educators, in particular, understanding the link between exceptionalities and cultural diversity is fundamental to their professional role (Hallahan et al., 2009). In the context of a multilingual and multicultural country, such as the United States, bilingual special education is no doubt the best way to ensure that a subgroup of our population (i.e., bilingual exceptional children) has real opportunities to succeed. A major concern for any educator, but especially for bilingual special educators who value and seek to implement multicultural education, is to ensure that bilingual exceptional learners are not placed at a disadvantage because of their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Here the term culture encompasses all the various aspects (subcultures) that contribute to define an individual. These are race, ethnicity, language, exceptionality, sexual orientation, gender, religion, socioeconomic background, and age.

Intrinsic values to the field of special education include advocacy, inclusivity, individuality, and empiricism. From early days of providing custodial care in segregated settings, special education has evolved into a program that seeks to educate students with a wide range of learning needs in inclusive settings and identify a robust research base that informs its policies and practices. Important concepts such as inclusion and continuum of services have not only been valuable in conceptualizing and in providing intervention for students with disabilities but have also been valuable in advancing the field. Research in special education and students with disabilities has been instrumental in moving the field forward. In the future, special education will continue to be valuable in supporting students whose learning and survival needs deviate from the norm in meaningful ways by delivering responsive evidence-based instruction.

This chapter provides an overview of special education in Canada, with specific reference to historical and modern trends and practices. Information regarding demographic trends, legislation and policy, contentious issues, Provincial differences, school and classroom practices, teacher education and professional development, and family involvement are outlined. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the ongoing challenges faced by education jurisdictions in Canada with respect to special education.

This chapter provides a comprehensive presentation and discussion of special education in Sweden. The presentation and discussion are tied deeply to the country’s general education system which incorporates social and political aspects as well as beliefs in equity for all.

The municipalities in Sweden have a large degree of independence as such special education can be organized in different ways. Yet, within each municipality’s educational structure is the common theme that students are different therefore teaching cannot be the same for everyone. The following chapter sections provide the reader with a better understanding of Sweden’s general special education system today: legislative acts that ensure equal access to education; the special education context; the history of special education and service in Sweden; the expansion of special education starting in the 1960s and early 1970s; current prevalence data; a clarification of differentiation, inclusion and categorization; teacher preparation advances; problems in schools and student’s difficulties; a description of inclusive education; and current challenges to inclusive education.

This chapter describes the status of past and current special education, inclusive education, and Low-Incidence Disabilities (LID) in South Korea by introducing historical background, legal development, and current trend. Four main areas related to special education in South Korea are highlighted: the historical background and legal development of special education; current laws relating to special education; inclusive education and LID; and the future of LID support in South Korea. This chapter will provide valuable information for those who want to become more knowledgeable about the current status of special education and inclusive education for learners with LID in South Korea.