The authors provide an analysis of why the controversies surrounding educational treatment are likely to continue even with scientific validation of practices as called for in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. They describe how bias in human judgment makes it difficult to trust others and also difficult to doubt oneself relative to important decisions and suggest that science, through its mechanism of self-correction, is the best tool for overcoming these biases. The developing relationship between general and special education since NCLB is described. Several suggestions are provided for researchers, including the need to (a) reexamine the functions of individualized education programs, (b) develop standard treatment protocols for students who need support beyond that provided by school-wide discipline programs, and (c) scrutinize the academic demands faced by students with emotional or behavioral disorders vis à vis compliance with NCLB.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrighamF. J., GustashawW. E.III, & BrighamM. S. P. (2004). Scientific practice and the tradition of advocacy in special education.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 200–206.
2.
BrighamF. J., & KauffmanJ. M. (1998). Creating supportive environments for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.Effective School Practices, 17(2), 23–33.
3.
BrighamF. J., TochtermanS., & BrighamM. S. P. (2001). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders and their teachers in test-linked systems of accountability.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26(1), 19–27.
4.
BrowderD., FlowersC., & Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula.The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211–223.
5.
ConroyM. A., DavisC. A., FoxJ. J., & BrownW. H. (2002). Functional assessment of behavior and effective supports for young children with challenging behaviors.Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27(4), 35–47.
6.
CubanL. (2000). Why is it so hard to get “good” schools? In CubanL., & ShippsD. (Eds.), Reconstructing the common good in education: Coping with intractable American dilemmas (pp. 148–169). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
DobbsM. (2004, April 22). ‘“No Child” law leaves schools’ old ways behind.The Washington Post, p. A-1.
8.
DoosjeB., & BranscombeN. R. (2003). Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group.European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 235–248.
9.
EspinC. A., DenoS. L., & Albayrak-KaymakD. (1998). Individualized education programs in resource and inclusive settings: How “individualized” are they?Journal of Special Education, 32, 164–174.
10.
FeilE. G., WalkerH., SeversonH., & BallA. (2000). Proactive screening for emotional/behavioral concerns in Head Start preschools: Promising practices and challenges in applied research.Behavioral Disorders, 26, 13–25.
11.
FeynmanR. P., RobbinsJ., & DysonF. J. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out: The best short works of Richard P. Feynman.Cambridge, MA: Helix/Perseus.
12.
FuchsD., MockD., MorganP. L., & YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171.
13.
GillonS. M. (2000). “That's not what we meant to do:” Reform and its unintended consequences in twentieth-century America.New York: Norton.
14.
GoodmanJ. F., & BondL. (1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective critique.Journal of Special Education, 26, 408–422.
15.
GottliebA. (2000). The dream of reason: A history of western philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (1st American ed.). New York: Norton.
16.
GrossP. R., & LevittN. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17.
GunterP. L., & CoutinhoM. J. (1997). Negative reinforcement in classrooms: What we're beginning to learn.Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 249–264.
18.
HaackS. (2003). Defending science—within reason: Between scientism and cynicism.Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
19.
HammondK. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice.New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
HechtJ. M. (2003). Doubt: A history. The great doubters and their legacy of innovation, from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson.New York: HarperSanFrancisco.
21.
HessF. M., & BrighamF. J. (2001). How federal special education policy affects schooling in Virginia. In FinnC. E.Jr., RotherhamA. J., & HokansonC. R.Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 161–181). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
22.
HuntP., & Farron-DavisF. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education versus special education classes.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 247–253.
23.
KoertgeN. (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science.New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
KramerR. M. (1999). Stalking the sinister attribution error: Paranoia inside the lab and out. In BiesR. J., & LewickiR. J. (Eds.), Research in negotiation in organizations (Vol. 7, pp. 59–91). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
25.
LewickaM. (1998). Confirmation bias: Cognitive error or adaptive strategy of action control? In KoftaM., WearyG., & SedekG. (Eds.), Personal control in action: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms (pp. 233–258). New York: Plenum.
26.
MacBrayerE. K., MilichR., & HundleyM. (2003). Attributional biases in aggressive children and their mothers.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 698–708.
NelsonJ., MartellaR. M., & Marchand-MartellaN. (2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a comprehensive school-based program for preventing problem behaviors.Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 10(3), 136–148.
29.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
30.
ProninE., LinD. Y., & RossL. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–381.
31.
RuscioJ. (2002). Clear thinking with psychology: Separating sense from nonsense.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning.
32.
ShermerM. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time.New York: Holt.
33.
ShowalterE. (1997). Hystories: Hysterical epidemics and modern culture.New York: Columbia University Press.
34.
SmithS. W. (1990a). Comparison of individualized education programs (IEPs) of students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities.Journal of Special Education, 24, 85–100.
35.
SmithS. W. (1990b). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education—From intent to acquiescence.Exceptional Children, 57, 6–14.
36.
SokalA. D., & BricmontJ. (1998). Fashionable nonsense: Postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science.New York: Picador USA.
37.
SpeeceD. L., CaseL. P., & MolloyD. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 147–156.
38.
SternbergR. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In EricssonK. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347–354). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
SternbergR. J. (2002). Why smart people can be so stupid.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
40.
StoneD. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision-making.New York: Norton.
41.
SugaiG., SpragueJ. R., HornerR. H., & WalkerH. M. (2001). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. In WalkerH. M., & EpsteinM. H. (Eds.), Making schools safer and violence free: Critical issues, solutions, and recommended practices (pp. 50–57). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
42.
SunsteinC. R. (2001). Republic.com.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
VanOostrumN., & HorvathP. (1997). The effects of hostile attribution on adolescents’ aggressive responses to social situations.Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13(1), 48–59.
45.
VaughnS., & FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 137–146.
46.
WalkerH. M. (1988). Systematic screening of pupils in the elementary age range at risk for behavior disorders: Development and trial testing of a multiple gating model.Remedial and Special Education, 9(3), 8–20.
47.
WalkerH. M., & SeversonH. H. (1992). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) (2nd ed.).Eugene: University of Oregon, Oregon Research Institute.
48.
WeissM. P. (2004). Co-teaching as science in the schoolhouse: More questions than answers.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 218–223.
49.
WeissM. P., & BrighamF. J. (2000). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility: What does the research support? In ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. A. (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 217–245). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
