As a basis for policy, constructivism has an ideological character that draws from but is not identical to Piagetian or Vygotskian notions of constructed knowledge. Special educators should be wary of borrowing fashionable rhetoric of postmodernism to justify development or reform of instruction and curriculum unless accompanying constructs and values can first be disentangled. In reflecting on the articles in this special issue, I indicate that there are higher stakes for special education, particularly in national curriculum and testing reform, that accompany constructivism as a rationale or framework for development of instructional curricular strategies for students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton, L. & Tomlinson, S. (Eds.). (1984). Special education and social interests. New York: Nichols.
2.
Carrier, J. G. (1983). Masking the social in educational knowledge: The case of learning disability theory. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 948–974.
3.
Carrier, J. G. (1986). Sociology and special education: Differentiation and allocation in mass education. American Journal of Education, 94, 281–312.
4.
Christensen, C. A., Gerber, M. M., & Everhart, R. (1986). Towards a sociological perspective on learning disabilities. Educational Theory, 36, 317–331.
5.
Gould, S. J. (1987). An urchin in the storm. New York: W. W. Norton.
6.
Heshusius, L. (1989). The Newtonian-mechanistic paradigm, special education, and contours of alternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 403–415.
7.
Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 57, 315–329.
8.
Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness?Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15–22.
9.
Howe, K. R., & Miramontes, O. B. (1992). The ethics of special education. New York: Teachers College Press.
10.
McGrew, K. S. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs. Tech. Report 2. Washington, DC: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
11.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1992). State special education outcomes 1991: A report on state activities in the assessment of educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (1992). Including students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs. Brief Report 1. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
13.
Poplin, M. S. (1984). Toward a holistic view of persons with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 290–294.
14.
Poplin, M. S. (1988). The reductionist fallacy in learning disabilities: Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 389–400.
15.
Sigmon, S. B. (1987). Radical analysis of special education: Focus on historical development. New York: Falmer Press.
16.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 148–206.
17.
Students fall short in new state tests. (1994, March 9). Los Angeles Times.
18.
Spretnak, C. (1991). States of grace: The recovery of meaning in the postmodern age. San Francisco: Harper.
19.
Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20.
Torgesen, J. K. (1987). Thinking about the future by distinguishing between issues that have resolutions and those that do not. In S. Vaughn & C. S. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions (pp. 55–67). Boston: Little, Brown.
