This article is the second in a 2-part synthesis of an international comparative seminar on the classification of children with disabilities. In this article, the authors discuss classification frameworks used in identifying children for the purpose of providing special education and related services. The authors summarize 7 papers that addressed aspects of disability classification in educational systems in the United States and the United Kingdom. They discuss current policies for determining which children receive special education services, the origins and evolution of these policies, and current dilemmas and challenges associated with classification schemes and the provision of special education. The authors also describe emerging data and possible models and practices that might be used in educational systems. They conclude with the recognition that both formal and informal educational classification systems will continue to be required within a system that must address the competing priorities of individual needs and the broader social and community goals of education. However, as was argued in the previous article, by understanding the mix of intentions that underpin these policies, as well as periodically reviewing the norms that underlie them, it may be possible to move classification to descriptors that can be used to efficiently and effectively define educational needs and distribute resources.
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.
Abberley, P. (1992). Counting us out: A discussion of the OPC's disability survey. Disability, Handicap & Society, 7(2), 139—155.
3.
Ainscow, M. (1994). Special needs in the classroom: A teacher education guide. London: Jessica Kingsley /UNESCO.
4.
Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools . London: Falmer Press.
5.
Booher-Jenning, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational Triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 252—268.
6.
Booth, T. (1983). Integration and participation in comprehensive schools. Forum, 25(2), 40—42.
7.
Byers, R., Dee, L., Hayhoe, H., & Maudsley, L. (2002). Enhancing quality of life for students with profound and complex learning di ficulties. London: SKILL.
8.
Chambers, J., Parrish, T., & Harr, J. (2002). What are we spending on special education services in the United States, 1999-2000? (Special Education Expenditure Project). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
9.
Christenson, S., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Institutional constraints and external pressures influencing referral decisions. Psychology in the Schools , 48, 341—345.
10.
Cohen, D.K. (1970). Immigrants and the schools. Review of Educational Research, 40(1), 13—27.
11.
Corbett, J. (1996). Bad-mouthing: The language of special needs. London: Falmer Press.
12.
Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Special needs in the primary school: One in five?London: Cassell.
13.
Department for Education. (1989). Children Act (c. 41). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
14.
Department for Education. (1994). Code of practice on the identification and assessment of special needs children . London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
15.
Department for Education. (1995). Disability Discrimination Act (c. 50). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
16.
Department for Education. (1996). Education Act 1996 (c. 56). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
17.
Department for Education and Skills. (2001 ). The code of practice on the identification and assessment of children with special educational needs. London: DfES.
18.
Department of Education and Science. (1978 ). Special educational needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (The Warnock Report) . London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
19.
Deschenes, S., Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don't fit them. Teachers College Record, 103, 525—547.
20.
Diana v. State Board of Education, No. C-70, 37RFT (N.D. Cal., 1970).
21.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (Eds.). (2002). Minority students in special education and gifted education. Washington, DC : National Academy of Sciences.
22.
Dyson, A., & Polat, F. (2004, September). Categorisation in special needs education: The critical potential of category systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Educational Research Association , Manchester, England.
23.
Florian, L., Rouse, M., Black-Hawkins, K., & Jull, S. (2004). What can national datasets tell us about inclusion and pupil achievement?British Journal of Special Education , 31(3), 115—121.
24.
Franklin, B.M. (1994). From “backwardness” to “at risk”: Childhood learning di ficulties and the contradictions of school reform. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
25.
Gallagher, J.J., Forsythe, P., Ringelheim, D., & Weintraub, F.J. (1975). Funding patterns and labeling . In N. Hobbs (Ed.), Issues in the classification of children (Vol. 2, pp. 432—462). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26.
Guadalupe Organization, Inc. v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3, 587 F.2d 1022, 1030 (9th Cir. 1972).
27.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
Henley, M., Ramsey, R.S., & Algozzine, R.F. (1996). Characteristics and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
29.
Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1986).
30.
Lyon, S.R., Fletcher, J.F., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, R. J. Rotheram, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259—288). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
31.
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
McLaughlin, M.J., & Jordan, A. (2005). Push and pull: Forces that are shaping inclusion in the United States and Canada. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Contextualizing inclusive education: Evaluating old and new international perspectives (pp. 89—113). London : Routledge.
33.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. (1996). Learning disabilities and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 19, 217—232.
34.
Mercer, C.D., & Mercer, A.R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
35.
Nagle, K.M., Malmgren, K., & Yunker, C.A. (in press). Students with disabilities and accountability reform: Challenges identified at the state and local levels. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.
36.
National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification. (2000). The NASDTEC manual 2000. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt.
37.
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
38.
Quality Counts. (2004). Education Week, 23(7).
39.
Reschly, D. (1987). Assessing educational handicaps. In A. Hess & I. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 155—187). New York: Wiley.
40.
Rossi, R., Hertig, J., & Wolman, J. (1997). Profiles of students with disabilities as identified in NELS:88. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
41.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
42.
Tomlinson, S. (1995). The radical structuralist view of special education disability: Unpopular perspectives on their origins and development. In T. M. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing special education for postmodernity (pp. 122—134). New York: Teachers College Press.
43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/research.html
44.
Wiley, H.I., Thurlow, M.L., & Klein, J.A. (2005). Steady progress: State public reporting practices for students with disabilities after the first year of NCLB (2002—2003) (Technical Report 40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
45.
Ysseldyke, J.E. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25 years of research on assessment and instructional decision making . Exceptional Children, 67, 295—309.
46.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., Richey, L., & Graden, J. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data?Learning Disability Quarterly , 5, 37—44.
