Who,How,and Where

Abstract

Special education is a product of the nature of human learning and the group orientation of regular education. It will survive or reemerge after the current assault and will continue to confront the chronic issues raised by Deno and Dunn. Professional divisions persist among special educators, and between us and regular educators. Debate continues over the population whom special education “ought” to serve. Individualization remains far more advocated than implemented. The right to an individualized placement decision based on the full continuum of alternative placements is at risk. To save the essential core of the discipline, special education must turn to data, child advocacy, and outcome-based instruction and turn away from slogans, program advocacy, and process-centered approaches.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bateman, B. (1992). Better IEPs. Creswell, OR: Otter Ink.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–237.

DeVries v. Fairfax County School Board, 882 F.2d 876, (4 CA, 1989).

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded---Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5–22.

Finn, C. E. (1990). The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 585–592.

Goldstein, H. , Moss, J. , & Jordan, L. J. (1965). The efficacy of special training on the development of mentally retarded children. Urbana: University of Illinois.