I visited California in 1989 in order to meet Mary Poplin at the Claremont Graduate School. I had been deeply impressed by her two articles that had appeared the previous year in the Journal of Learning Disabilities (Poplin, 1988a, 1988b). It is always such a pleasure to meet someone of like mind. (The meeting seemed particularly poignant in light of the fact that at that time, back in Britain, the National Curriculum was rearing its ugly head.) The work of Lous Heshusius (1982, 1989, 1991, 1992) and Richard Iano (1986, 1989, 1990) has also given me much encouragement. All three writers rightly reject “reductionism” in special education and support an alternative world view: holism.
I am very concerned about the way that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) dominate special education in both North America and Britain. The purposes of this article are to sketch an account of the rise of IEPs in Britain, to expose some problems presented by the behavioral objectives model and its associated IEPs, to introduce an alternative model—the process model—and to show the shift from a product to a process approach in curriculum planning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ainscow, M., & Tweddle, D. A. (1979). Preventing classroom failure: An objectives approach. London: Wiley.
2.
Ballard, K. D. (1986). Group designs, within-subject designs, case-study designs, and qualitative methodologies in educational and psychological research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 21, 42–54.
3.
Beveridge, S. (1993). Special educational needs in schools. London: Routledge.
4.
Billinge, R. (1988). The objectives model of curriculum development: A creaking bandwagon?Mental Handicap, 15(1), 26–29.
5.
Blandshard, B. (1973). The uses of a liberal education. New York: Sceptre Books.
6.
Blenkin, G. M., Edwards, G., & Kelly, A. V. (1992). Change and the curriculum. London: Paul Chapman.
7.
Blenkin, G. M., & Kelly, A. V. (1981). The primary curriculum. London: Harper & Row.
8.
Blenkin, G. M., & Kelly, A. V. (Eds.), (1983). The primary curriculum in action: A process approach to educational practice. London: Paul Chapman.
9.
Blenkin, G. M., & Kelly, A. V. (1987). The primary curriculum: A process approach to curriculum planning. (2nd ed.). London: Harper & Row.
10.
Booth, T., Potts, P., Swann, W., & Masterton, M. (Eds.), (1992). Curricula for diversity in education. London: Routledge.
11.
Brennan, W. K. (1974). Shaping the education of slow learners. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
12.
Butt, N., & Scott, E. M. (1994). Individual education programs in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 1, 9–15.
13.
Colmar, S. (1988). A perspective on behavior checklists. Educational Psychology, 8, 117–121.
14.
Daniels, H. (1992). Dynamic assessment: Pitfalls and prospects. In T. Cline (Ed.), The assessment of special educational needs: International perspectives (pp. 174–197). London: Routledge.
15.
Department for Education. (1992). Addendum to Circular 22/89. London: Author.
16.
Department for Education. (1994). Education Act 1993: Special educational needs—Code of practice. London: Author.
17.
Department of Education & Science. (1978). Special educational needs (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO.
18.
Department of Education & Science. (1988). National curriculum: Task group on assessment and testing—A report. London: HMSO.
19.
Dewey, J. (1990). Educational principles. The Elementary School Journal.
20.
Doll, W. E.Foundations of a postmodern curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1989, 21(3), 243–253.
21.
Downey, M. (1980). The psychological background to curriculum planning. In A. V. Kelly (Ed.), Curriculum context (pp. 62–94). London: Harper & Row.
22.
Emblem, B., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (1990). Towards level 1: Reality or illusion? British Journal of Special Education, 17, 88–90.
23.
Freeman, A., & Gray, H. (1989). Organizing special educational needs: A critical approach. London: Paul Chapman.
24.
Gardner, J., Murphy, J., & Crawford, N. (1983). The skills analysis model. Kidderminster, England: British Institute of Mental Handicap.
25.
Glenn, S. (1987). Interactive approaches to working with children with profound and multiple learning difficulties. In B. Smith (Ed.), Interactive approaches to the education of children with severe learning difficulties (pp. 34–46). Birmingham, England: Westhill College.
26.
Goddard, A. (1981a). Some serious limitations in using a behavioral objectives model in curriculum development. Unpublished manuscript.
27.
Goddard, A. (1981b). Curriculum development and special educational needs: An introduction. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Goddard, A. (1983). Processes in special education. In G. M. Blenkin & A. V. Kelly (Eds.), The primary curriculum in action: A process approach to educational practice (pp. 248–278). London: Paul Chapman.
29.
Goddard, A.Time to change the product. British Journal of Special Education, 1994, 21(1), 29–32.
30.
Hanko, G. (1993). Special needs in ordinary classrooms. Hemel Hempstead, England: Simon & Schuster Education.
31.
Heshusius, L. (1982). At the heart of the advocacy dilemma: A mechanistic world view. Exceptional Children, 49, 6–13.
32.
Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian mechanistic paradigm, special education and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403–415.
33.
Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 57, 315–328.
34.
Heshusius, L. (1992). Reading meaning into texts. Exceptional Children, 58, 472–475.
35.
Iano, R. P.The study and development of teaching: With implications for the advancement of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 1986, 7(5), 50–61.
36.
Iano, R. P. (1989). Comments related to Professor Heshusius' application of paradigm change to special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 416–417.
37.
Iano, R. P. (1990). Special education teachers: Technicians or educators? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 462–465.
38.
Kelly, A. V. (1990). The national curriculum: A critical review. London: Paul Chapman.
39.
Kiernan, C., Jordan, R., & Saunders, C. (1978). Starting off. London: Souvenir Press.
40.
Leeming, K., Swann, W., Coupe, J., & Mittler, P. (1979). Teaching language and communication to the mentally handicapped. London: Evans/Methuen Educational for the Schools Council.
41.
Lister, T. A., & Cameron, R. J. (1986). Curriculum management (Part 1): Planning curriculum objectives. Educational Psychology in Practice, 2, 6–14.
42.
Mittler, P. (1981). Training for the 21st century. Special Education: Forward Trends, 8, 24–27.
43.
Mittler, P. (1994, May 13). Platform. The Times Educational Supplement, London, p. 21.
44.
Murphy, R. (1990). National assessment proposals: Analyzing the debate. In M. Flude & M. Hammer (Eds.), The Education Reform Act 1988: Its origins and implications (pp. 37–49). London: Falmer Press.
45.
National Curriculum Council. (1989). A curriculum for all. York, England: Author.
46.
National Curriculum Council. (1991). A curriculum for all—Special educational needs in the national curriculum. York, England: Author.
47.
National Curriculum Council. (1992). Curriculum guidance 10: Teaching science to pupils with special educational needs. York, England: Author.
48.
Nind, M., & Hewett, D. (1988). Interaction as curriculum. British Journal of Special Education, 15, 55–57.
49.
Nind, M., & Hewett, D. (1994). Access to communication: Developing the basics of communication with people with severe learning difficulties through intensive interaction. London: David Fulton.
50.
Office for Standards in Education. (1993). Framework for the inspection of schools. London: Author.
51.
Pearson, L., & Tweddle, D. A. (1984). The formulation and use of behavioral objectives. In D. Fontana (Ed.), Behaviorism and learning theory in education (pp. 75–92). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
52.
Perkins, E. A., Taylor, P. D., & Cadie, A. C. (1976). Helping the retarded. Kidderminster, England: British Institute of Mental Handicap.
53.
Poplin, M. S. (1988a). The reductionistic fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389–400.
54.
Poplin, M. S. (1988b). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401–416.
55.
Robson, C. (1988). Evaluating the education of the developmentally young (EDY) course for training staff in behavioral methods. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 3, 13–22.
56.
Sebba, J., Byers, R., & Rose, R. (1993). Redefining the whole curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties. London: David Fulton.
57.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
58.
Swann, W. (1992). Hardening the hierarchies: The national curriculum as a system of classification. In T. Booth, P. Potts, W. Swann, & M. Masterton (Eds.), Curricula for diversity in education (pp. 57–78). London: Routledge.
59.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T.Contingencies in contexts: A behavioral interactionist perspective in education. Educational Psychology, 1988, 8(1–2), 5–19.
61.
Wood, S., & Shears, B. (1986). Teaching children with severe learning difficulties: A radical reappraisal. London: Croom Helm.
