This article is the first of a 2-part synthesis of an international seminar on the classification of children with disabilities. It synthesizes 6 papers that address broad questions relating to disability classification and categorization, cross-national comparisons on disability in education, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and Amartya Sen's capability approach. The focus of the article is the intentions, purposes, and future directions for disability classification in education. The authors argue that these advances offer researchers and policy-makers the opportunity to examine the relational nature of disability classification in any recalibration of statutory standards or educational policy reforms. Such developments are necessary to move beyond discrete categorical classification systems traditionally used in education that (a) do not recognize the complexity of human differences, (b) unnecessarily stigmatize children, and (c) do not always benefit the individuals who are classified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 2(1), 5—19.
2.
Ainscow, M. (Ed.). (1991). E fective schools for all. London: David Fulton.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
4.
Audit Commission. (2002). Statutory assessment of SEN: In need of review?London: Author
5.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). The index for inclusion (2nd ed.). Bristol, England: Centre for Studies in InclusiveEducation.
6.
Bowers, T., & Parrish, T. (2000). Funding of special education in the United States and England and Wales. In M. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Great Britain (pp. 167—193). London: Routledge.
7.
Cromwell, R.L., Blashfield, R.K., & Strauss, J.S. (1975). Criteria for classification systems. In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification of children: A sourcebook on categories labels and their consequences (Vol. 1, pp. 4—25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Department for Education and Science. (1978 ). Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the education of handicapped children (Warnock Report). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
9.
Department for Education and Skills. (2003 ). Data collection by type of special educational need. London: Author.
10.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted education. Washington, DC : National Academy of Sciences.
11.
Florian, L. (2005). `Inclusion', `special needs' and the search for new understandings. Support for Learning, 20(2), 96—98.
12.
First, M.B., & Pincus, H.A. (2002). The DSM-IV text revision: Rationale and potential impact on clinical practice. Psychiatric Services, 53(3), 288—292.
13.
Grubb, N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The education gospel: The economic power of schooling . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Hobbs, N. (Ed.). (1975a). The futures of children: Categories, labels and their consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Hobbs, N. (Ed.). (1975b). Issues in the classification of children: Categories, labels and their consequence . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Keogh, B.K., & MacMillan, D.L. (1996). Exceptionality. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 311— 330). New York: Simon Shuster/Macmillan .
17.
Kirp, D. (1982). Professionalism as policy choice: British special education in comparative perspective. World Politics, 34, 137—174.
18.
Lazerson, M. (1983). The origins of special education. In J. G. Chambers & W. T. Hartman (Eds.), Special education policies: Their history, implementation and finance (pp. 3—47). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
19.
Lollar, D.J., & Simeonsson, R.J. (2005). Diagnosis to function: Classification for children and youths. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 3323—3330.
20.
Malmgren, K.W., McLaughlin, M.J., & Nolet, V. (2005). Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 86—96.
21.
McKeith, R., & Bax, M. (Eds.). (1963). Minimal cerebral dysfunction (Papers from the international study group held at Oxford, September 1962) . London: Heinemann.
22.
Measuring Health and Disability in Europe. ( 2005). Measuring health and disability in Europe: Supporting policy development—a European coordination action for policy support . Retrieved October 15, 2005, from http://www.mhadie.it
23.
Minow, M. (1990). Making all the di ference: Inclusion, exclusion and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
Odom, S.L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R.H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K.R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137—148.
25.
Office for Standards in Education. (2004). Special educational needs and disability: Towards inclusive schools. London: Author.
26.
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Basingstoke, England : Macmillan.
27.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Equity in education: Students with disabilities, learning di ficulties and disadvantages. Paris: Author.
28.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005a). Education at a glance. Paris : Author.
29.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005b). Students with disabilities, learning di ficulties and disadvantages—Statistics and indicators. Paris : Author.
30.
Prewitt, K. (2005, April). Demography and democracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
31.
Robeyns, I. (2003). The capability approach: An interdisciplinary introduction. Retrieved January7, 2005, from http://www.ingridrobeyns.nl/Downloads/CAtraining20031209.pdf
32.
Sacker, A., Schoon, L., & Bartley, M. (2001). Sources of bias in special needs provision in mainstream primary schools: Evidence from two British cohort studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 259— 276.
33.
Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen's capability approach to education: A critical examination. Journal of Philosophy of Education , 37(1), 17—32.
34.
Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living: Lecture I. Concepts and critiques. In G. Hawthorne (Ed.), The standard of living: The Tanner Lectures, Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1985 (pp. 1—20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford /New York: Clarendon Press & Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
Simeonsson, R.J. (2003). Classification of communication disabilities in children: Contribution of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. International Journal ofAudiology , 42, S2—S8.
37.
Simeonsson, R.J., Leonardi, M., Lollar, D., Bjorck-Akesson, E., Hollenweger, J., & Martinuzzi, A. (2003). Applying the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to measure childhood disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(11/12), 602—610.
38.
Simeonsson, R.J., Lollar, D., Hollowell, J., & Adams, M. (2000). Revision of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: Developmental issues. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology, 53, 113— 124.
39.
Skrtic, T.M. (1991) Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love.
40.
Terzi, L. (2005a). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39, 443—459.
41.
Terzi, L. (2005b). A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special needs: Towards social justice in education. Theory and Research in Education, 3, 197—223.
42.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
43.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1997). International standard classification of education, ISCED 97. Paris: Author.
44.
United Nations. (2000). Millennium development goals. Retrieved August 11, 2005, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals
45.
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations Children's Fund, & World Bank. (1990). Final report: World conference on education for all, Meeting Basic Learning Needs, 5—9 March 1990, Jomtien, Thailand. New York: United Nations Development Programme, UNESCO, UNICEF, & World Bank Inter-Agency Commission, World Conference on Education For All.
46.
Unterhalter, E. (2003). The capabilities approach and gendered education: an examination of South African complexities. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 7—22.
47.
Unterhalter, E., &Brighouse, H. (2003 September). Distribution of what? How will we know if we have achieved education for all by 2015?Paper presented at the third conference on the capability approach, From Sustainable Development to Sustainable Freedom, Pavia, Italy.
48.
Verbrugge, L.M., & Jette, A.M. (1994). The disablement process. Social Science & Medicine (1967), 38, 1—14.
49.
Wedell, K. (2003). What's in a label?British Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 107.
50.
World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: Author.
51.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: Author.
52.
World Health Organization. (2005). International classification of diseases and health related problems: ICD-10 (2nd ed.). Geneva: Author.
