PERSPECTIVE
Bridging the Special Education Divide
JACK E. ANDREWS, DOUGLAS W. CARNINE, MARTHA J. COUTINHO,
EUGENE B. EDGAR, STEVEN R. FORNESS, LYNN S. FUCHS, DIXIE JORDAN,
JAMES M. KAUFFMAN, JAMES M. PATTON, JAMES PAUL, JON ROSELL,
ROBERT RUEDA, ELLEN SCHILLER, THOMAS M. SKRTIC, AND JAMES WONG
~E
HE FIELD OF SPECIAL EDUCATION BOASTS
BOASTS MAJOR
the
and
validation
accomplishments, including
development
of innovative interventions for enhancing the performance of
individuals with disabilities and the passage of federal legislation entitling students with disabilities to free, appropriate
educational programs delivered in least restrictive environments. These accomplishments have effected dramatic improvements in the lives of individuals with disabilities, with
greater proportions of students with disabilities, compared to
30 years ago, now attending, achieving in, and graduating
from public schools and making successful transitions into
adulthood. Moreover, U.S. culture, including public school
classrooms, has made significant progress toward integrating
individuals with disabilities into the fabric of everyday life.
Despite these important advancements, it is nevertheless
true that the special education knowledge base, service delivery system, and funding remain inadequate for addressing
the needs of many students with disabilities. Many students
continue to suffer inappropriate school experiences and fail
to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for successful
postschool adjustment. In addition, U.S. culture has not yet
achieved a state in which individuals with disabilities benefit
from a fully normalized, fair life experience.
In response to this contradictory state, in which significant accomplishments are accompanied by notable shortcomings, the field of special education has adopted the challenge
of self-improvement by examining its problems. Over the past
2 decades, the field has engaged in a continuous process of
critical self-study, in which fundamental questions about the
258
best frameworks and methods for serving students with disabilities have been debated. Although the process of selfstudy often stimulates advancement, special education critical
analysis instead has more often engendered serious disagreement, which has crystallized in distinct views about appropriate directions for special education reform. This creates a
special education divide, which may delay improvement if it
is misunderstood.
The Shaklee Institute for Improving Special Education, a
privately funded think tank sponsored by Heartspring in
Wichita, Kansas, has worked over the past several years with
leading special education scholars to understand these opposing views on special education reform and to identify
directions for moving the field beyond divisiveness, in the direction of positive change. The purpose of this article, sponsored by the institute, is to describe the special education
divide, as we understand it, and to propose that the field come
together to bridge or link, if not integrate, the perspectives to
move beyond the stalemate.
THE SPECIAL EDUCATION DIVIDE: DISTINCT
VIEWS ON SPECIAL EDUCATION REFORM
One of the views on special education reform can be characterized as incremental improvement of a basically sound
system; another is substantial reconceptualization of a fundamentally broken system. These two views on special education reform differ in terms of their understanding of the notion
of disability and its implications; their perspectives on the
purpose of special education; their beliefs about the expected
outcomes of special education; their understanding of the current state of special education knowledge; and their views on
necessary steps for rendering special education an ethically
defensible and effective entity.
Conceptualizations of Disability
The incremental improvement perspective on special education reform conceptualizes disability as an intraindividual
phenomenon. Exemplified by the medical model, a disability
is a defect owned by the individual. Within this perspective,
disability is something to fix, cure, accommodate, or perhaps
endure. By contrast, the substantial reconceptualization perspective views disability, but especially reactions to it, as a
social construction based on outdated assumptions about difference, especially those that stem from the dominance of the
medical model in U.S. culture and the field of special education. Although this perspective does not deny the existence of
students with disabilities or special educational needs, it
asserts that &dquo;disability&dquo; resides more in the minds of the
beholders than in the bodies of the beheld. Within this perspective, then, major targets of change are the faulty constructions of disability that dominate thought and action in
society and its institutions, especially the institution of public education and the professions of education and special
education.
Perspectives on the Purpose
of Special Education
These differing notions of disability affect our perspectives on
special education’s purpose. The incremental change perspective views the purpose of special education as changing the
individual through the development and validation of innovative interventions for enhancing performance. The substantial
reconceptualization perspective sees merit in enhancing performance, but views as equally important changing the social constructions that unnecessarily limit individuals who are
thought to have disabilities and constrain well-meaning efforts to serve them appropriately.
Beliefs About the Expected Outcomes
of Special Education
Opposing conceptualizations of disability and differing perspectives on the purpose of special education inevitably lead
to alternative beliefs about the expected outcomes of special
education. On one hand, an incremental improvement perspective understands the primary outcome for special education as the successful postschool adaptive functioning of
individuals with disabilities, in addition to increasing individual knowledge and skill levels. On the other hand, the substantial reconceptualization perspective views as an outcome
the creation of a caring, adaptable society in which human
differences and unique needs are addressed in ways that do
not result in labeling, stigmas, or exclusionary practices. The
broader value of such a system of schooling is that it promotes
the creation of a more caring, inclusive society in which individuals with disabilities and their families can live a more
meaningful and satisfying life, both during and after school.
Understanding of the Current State of Knowledge
About Special Education Practice
In light of these opposing beliefs about the purpose and func-
tion of special education, it is not surprising that the divide
fosters differing understandings about the current state of
knowledge for achieving its goals. Although neither perspective deems the current state of knowledge adequate for
accomplishing its purposes, an incremental improvement perspective views the available knowledge as representing a
promising base on which additional research and development
can be built. By contrast, the substantial reconceptualization
perspective judges the knowledge base to be inadequate in the
sense that it has been limited in the questions it asks and the
means it uses to answer them.
Specifically, the incremental reformers find evidence
that much is good about special education as it currently
exists: strong academic instruction, individualized programming where decisions about student programs are formulated
on the basis of demonstrated efficacy, and meaningful relations between youth with and without disabilities. Despite
these strengths, the incremental reformers also acknowledge
imperfections in the knowledge base. For example, &dquo;footprints&dquo; of best practices validated by research are infrequently
found in classrooms. Two factors explain this failure to bridge
research and practice. First, because teachers are not taught
the scientific method in their professional training, they fail to
develop belief in and reliance on research-based practices.
Second, administrative systems may inadvertently inhibit the
implementation of best practices. Before we can expect schools
to institutionalize rigorous best practices, school boards must
establish standards for the teaching conditions (e.g., case
loads, technical assistance to teachers, demands on teacher
time) that support student learning.
Moreover, the incremental reformers believe that the
field requires additional information about instructional practices. The view is that available special education research
and development dollars should be refocused on effective
instruction. For at least 2 decades, greater spending emphasis
has been on eligibility, access, and service delivery. This
emphasis must shift so that traditional research methods are
used to formulate instructional practices that produce optimal
outcomes for individuals with disabilities and identify the
conditions necessary for institutionalizing those best practices. The incremental reformers conclude that although the
current knowledge base is important and impressive, it is
small compared to what the field needs to know for serving
students and youth with disabilities in an optimal manner.
In contrast to this incremental improvement perspective,
the substantial reconceptualists believe that, given fundamen-
259
tal problems with the general education system, special education is often ineffective, wasteful, and, for some students,
damaging. The reconceptualist position incorporates a focus
on racism, on systems, on researchers as change agents, and
on the need to redefine moral and ethical behavior. With respect to racism, the substantial reconceptualists view schools
as failing to address ethnic and racial diversity: Schools fail to
recognize and provide all students, regardless of their differences, appropriate support, discipline, and instruction. Special
education is viewed as an extension of this uncaring system,
which contributes additional stigmas to an already unsatisfactory situation. If special education is to fulfill its promise of
enhancing individual lives, it first must address the racism and
cultural stigmas that devalue differences.
In a related way, the substantial reconceptualists see the
need for special education research and development to focus
on systems. If special education improvement requires modification of the ways that schools at large conduct their fundamental activities, then the necessary reforms must address the
structure and culture of schools. The knowledge base for understanding and modifying that structure and culture is viewed
as woefully inadequate. The field must rethink teaching,
learning, and caring to guard against the use of disciplinebased technologies as a substitute for reflective practice. Research, therefore, must focus on the nature of schools as
complex organizations. This requires expansion of research
and evaluation approaches to include those more suited to
organizational change. Substantial reconceptualists agree
with the incremental reformers that we need to do a better job
of teaching the scientific method, but add that this should be
done from the perspective of philosophy of science and that
the scientific method should be understood as one of many
ways of knowing. Additionally, given the demonstrably slow
pace by which research translates into practice, special education research and evaluation must shift focus to transformation : We study change, and we should promote change.
Moreover, with the prevailing emphasis on site-based
management, the substantial reconceptualists view a focus on
ethical policymaking as essential. School committees need
the knowledge, skills, and perspectives that permit ethical
decisions in the best interests of all children, including those
with disabilities.
Necessary Steps for Improving
Special Education
These views lead to opposing scenarios for special education
reform. The incremental reformers, who view the basic special education structure as sound, believe the course is set.
They believe we need to push traditional research forward to
identify additional best practices that address a broader range
of student problems, to understand the necessary conditions for implementing best practices in schools, and to introduce scientific rigor to teacher preparation programs to
enhance the perceived status of and value placed on validated practices.
260
By contrast, the substantial reconceptualists, who view
special education as anathema to a nurturing, caring, supportive school culture, believe the course must
current models of
be altered. They believe we need to redefine our research
methods to understand and promote reflective, ethical decision making on behalf of all students. Special education
researchers must consider themselves first as educational
researchers and second as special education researchers. The
assumption is that as schools become more responsible and
principled in their thinking about students, their understanding of disability will necessarily transform, and the need for a
separate system of services and a separate research base for
individuals with disabilities will disappear.
CAN THE DISTINCT VIEWS BE RECONCILED?
The Shaklee scholars represent both views on special education reform, as well as points on a continuum running between the two positions characterized in this article. Over the
past several years, we have discussed these and other opposing views and worked hard to understand alternative perspectives. Our motivation for this effort is twofold. On the one
hand, we share the hope that, by reconciling these perspectives, special education can move beyond the divide that currently delays robust reform activity. On the other hand, we
share the fear that without integrating the two perspectives,
the field runs the risk of irreparably damaging its credibility
and its capacity to serve the best interests of individuals with
disabilities. So, the question is, can these dramatically contrasting views on special education reform be reconciled in a
way that benefits students and families?
We think so. We believe that special education can shape
public opinion about disability in ways that help schools see
all children as important stakeholders, while promoting the
development of methods that enhance capacity for successful
postschool adjustments among individuals with disabilities.
We believe it is possible to recognize that substantial knowledge exists about how to enhance individual capacity, even as
the field works on multiple fronts: developing additional best
practices and understanding the conditions necessary for
institutionalizing those best practices while studying and
improving the structure and culture of schools in ways that
promote principled decision making, equitable treatment, and
fair thinking about all students. We believe that a division of
labor makes sense, wherein the incremental reformers focus
on what to do on behalf of children, and the substantial reconceptualists focus on achieving the conditions necessary for
promoting optimal methods. We believe that the field needs to
work simultaneously with the children and on the system.
A focus on early detection and prevention may represent
one constructive arena for initiating this collaboration. Early
detection requires proactive schoolwide programs for all students before referral to special education is necessary. In a
(continued on p. 267)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.
ments. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Edu-
§ 1415.
Kimball, K., Olson Brown, S., & Johnson, E. (1999). Creating accommodations policy: How hard is it? Unpublished manuscript, University of
Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding test comparability in accommo-
Washington.
Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky.
Los Angeles: CRESST/RAND Institute on Education and Training.
McLaughlin, M., & Shepard, L. (1996). Improving education through
standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform.
Phillips, S. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus
disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93-120.
Sharp, L. (1996). Assessment policy as it impacts special populations: Mod. Seattle: Univerifications and accommodations in student assessment
sity of Washington, Institute for the Study of Educational Policy.
Thurlow, M., Erickson, R., Spicuzza, R., Vieburg, K., & Ruhland, A. (1996).
Accommodations for students with disabilities: Guidelines from states
with graduation exams. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National
Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., Erickson, R., & Elliot, J. (1997). Increasing the
participation of students with disabilities in state and district assess-
cational Outcomes.
dated testing. Eugene: University of Oregon State Collaborative on
Assessment and Student Standards.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998).
Accommodating students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children, 64, 439-450.
Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students
. Minneapolis: University of
with disabilities in large-scale assessments
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Bruininks, R. (1992). Expected educational
outcomes for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education,
(6), 19-30.
13
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Geenan, K. (1994). Educational accountability for students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Manuscript received September 8, 1999
Initial acceptance November 10, 1999
Revision received December 8, 1999
Final acceptance December 20, 1999
(continued from p. 260)
related way, primary prevention attempts to avert disabilities
before they occur, whereas secondary prevention works to
forestall the adverse impact of existing disabilities. This includes reconceptualizing school, organization, and governance
in ways that eliminate any debilitating effects of conventional
practices. Meaningful collaboration among the impressive
talents representing both views can provide the model for parallel collaboration to occur among the multiple agencies
available to act on behalf of individuals with or at risk for disabilities. With collaboration among the practice and systems
camps and with corresponding collaboration across agencies,
important progress may be forged to minimize the long-term
negative consequences associated with disability.
We need to push ahead with traditional and nontraditional research for improving knowledge and practice about
enhancing individual student capacity and promoting a caring
school culture in which the lines between student categories
meld. Our shared goal is the welfare of students with disabilities and all children.
Effecting this reconciliation of perspectives, of course, is
a substantial challenge. In formulating methods for integrating these views, for promoting collaboration among researchers with alternative perspectives and among agencies
with varying agendas, and for moving the field beyond the
divide, the Shaklee Institute has defined an ambitious work
scope. The task is ominous; the timing is crucial. We are,
nevertheless, optimistic that the field can find the common
ground necessary to accomplish this mission. We believe it
is healthy to reflect and challenge in constructive ways. We
believe the ultimate indicators of effectiveness and success
must improve students’ lives and well-being.
JACK E. ANDREWS is president of Heartspring. DOUGLAS W. CARNINE, PhD, is a professor in the College of Education, University of Oregon.
MARTHA J. COUTINHO, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Human
Development and Learning, East Tennessee State University. EUGENE B.
EDGAR, PhD, is a professor of education at the University of Washington.
STEVEN R. FORNESS, EdD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California-Los Angeles.
LYNN S. FUCHS, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University. DIXIE JORDAN is affiliated with the Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights, Minneapolis, Minnesota. JAMES M.
KAUFFMAN, PhD, is a professor of education, University of Virginia.
JAMES M. PATTON, EdD, is a professor of special education, College of
William and Mary. JAMES PAUL, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
Special Education, University of South Florida. JON ROSELL, PhD, is the
executive director of the Shaklee Institute for Improving Special Education.
ROBERT RUEDA, PhD, is a professor in the Division of Educational Psychology, University of Southern California. ELLEN SCHILLER, PhD, is
affiliated with Abt Associates, Bethesda, Maryland. THOMAS SKRTIC,
PhD, is the chairperson of the Department of Special Education, University of Kansas. JAMES WONG is the founder of Directions International,
Dallas, Texas. Address: Jon Rosell, Shaklee Institute for Improving Special Education, 8700 E. 29th St. N, Wichita, KS 67226 (e-mail: jrosell@
heartspring.org).
267