Child Youth Care Forum (2017) 46:157–160 DOI 10.1007/s10566-016-9385-7 ORIGINAL PAPER
A Critical Examination of the Implicit Assumptions in Special Education: Introduction to the Special Section David S. Katowitz1 • S. Kenneth Thurman1
Published online: 7 December 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
…as long as an assumption is implicit…you are unlikely ever to question it, and so you are totally in the power of that assumption. (Tart 1975) As the Tart quote above suggests, implicit assumptions can blind us, metaphorically, inhibiting us to critically examine what we are doing. By exposing and challenging these implicit assumptions, making explicit the implicit, we can then attempt to modify and change them by offering an alternative set of assumptions. Special education as a field is not exempt from operating with a set of assumptions where the implicit guides the manner in which special educational services are delivered. The purpose of this special section is to highlight some of the implicit assumptions of special education, to critically examine them, and to offer some alternatives to current ways of thinking. The hope is that this collection of papers stimulates dialogue and discussion, which furthers how those of us who ‘‘practice’’ special education go about our business. These papers emerged as the result of a doctoral seminar focused on ‘‘Trends and Issues in Special Education.’’ As the discussion evolved across the semester, a collaborative exploratory partnership was forged, propelling the seminar’s participants to embark on a meaningful and reflective journey. As the course progressed, the weekly discussions and diverse perspectives led the group to consider how the results of their dialogues could be more widely disseminated. This special section of Child and Youth Care Forum is the result of the some of the ideas and topics that were considered during the seminar. They are shared here not only with the hope that they stimulate dialogue and debate, but also that they remind us of the importance to critically examine our implicit operating assumptions and how they affect and guide our practice. The progression of rich dialogue and philosophical debate led the group to narrow and target its focus, within the context of the current trends and issues in special education, to & S. Kenneth Thurman
[email protected] 1
Temple University, Ritter Hall 350, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19122-6091, USA
123
158
Child Youth Care Forum (2017) 46:157–160
consider a simple question: What are the implicit assumptions in special education today? This was an enriching and enlightening exercise for class members for it allowed them to gain a unique perspective through the cumulative lens of a diverse group of participants, all of whom have varying and extensive experiences serving students, families and professionals in the field. Furthermore they were afforded a safe platform from which they could challenge current assumptions, raise mutual consciousness, and consider alternative conjectures culminating in a collective body to disseminate to the greater professional community at large. Ultimately, four papers were produced, which resulted in this special section. The four topics are: Identification of Learning Disabilities, Special Education Policy, Evidence Based Practices and Technology. All of the papers address some set of implicit assumptions in special education as they relate to a given topic and there are several common overlapping themes. One of the papers also incorporates the concept of fit from the ecological congruence model (Thurman 1977, 1997). This perception and orientation was instrumental for all of the authors when considering alternative assumptions, for this model challenges the implicit assumption in special education that says when there is discrepancy between what we think ‘should be’ and ‘what is’ that we intervene solely on the individual. Alternatively, instead of focusing solely on the notion that an individual needs to be ‘fixed,’ in attempts to have them conform to the norms within a given environment, the model suggests we should consider intervening on the system as well for the purpose of establishing fit rather than many of our present practices which are more focused on changing individuals. To establish fit, we do not have to necessarily ‘do’ anything to an individual who may be perceived or classified as being exceptional. Using this model, the assumption that our intervention goals are designed to bring about individual change may be de-emphasized and are replaced with the alternate assumption that our business is to intervene to establish fit. The model broadens our perspective by forcing us to consider mutual change by not only designing interventions aimed at changing individuals but also interventions that are designed to change social and physical environments in which the individual operates. The result of these mutual interventions, if successful, is a greater degree of fit within the systems which incorporate the individual. Embracing this alternative assumption would lead to substantive changes in how we do what we do. For example, we might still develop IEPs but they might not only be focused on a particular child but rather on a particular ecology, having as their goal the establishment of fit within the system. Such an approach might entail ‘‘changing’’ both the child and the system that encompasses him/her (cf. Thurman et al. 1989). Similarly, each of the papers in this special issue represents a similar analysis of one or more implicit assumptions and then offers some alternatives to those assumptions with the hope that we are stimulated to re-examine how we go about our practices. The first paper by Riddle makes explicit a set of contextual factors that may impact the validity of learning disability (LD) identification for many individuals, including the disproportionate identification of certain groups within the population. In Ecological Congruence and the Identification of Learning Disabilities, there is a great emphasis on making explicit the contextual factors that impact the practice where students are identified based on skill deficits, largely based on standardized and normative referenced assessments that are not culturally sensitive, designed to identify strengths or skills for those with individual differences and cannot explain why an individual may obtain a certain score. Factors such as social-economic status, previous quality or lack of instruction, linguistic and dialectical differences, transience, negative environmental factors e.g., in the home setting, and cultural differences are all contextual aspects that are not always considered
123
Child Youth Care Forum (2017) 46:157–160
159
with gravity for how it may impacting learning. The author suggests that while the Response to Intervention (RTI) Model has had benefits for shifting from a discrepancy model to response to evidence-based instructional practices and intervention, issues remain with RTI implementation fidelity. This includes the lack of educational professionals selecting the appropriate types of curricula and intervention for the individual. Moreover, the focus on deficits remains along with a lack of a more complete embracement of the consideration of cultural contexts and differences. Riddle offers an alternative approach that utilizes ecological congruence as a component of the assessment process. This approach considers how the individual’s environmental factors across settings may impact their functional abilities. This form of assessment is not only culturally and contextually responsive, but it shifts the focus from solely focusing on the individual’s deficits, where the implicit assumption is that there is something ‘wrong’ with the learner to looking at all aspects of the learner’s environment to increase the likelihood of fit. The notion considered by some, that the identified learner is in some way flawed is expanded to the context of the learning environment in Kirby’s Implicit Assumptions in Special Education Policy: Historical Trends and Current Practices. The author posits that exclusion for individuals with disabilities is still prevalent where special education remains a separate placement and practice to the extent where not all students are educated in the least restrictive environment, despite advances in legislation, policy and advocacy. The explicit assumptions are, however, that placement in special education in fact has not reduced the gap for individuals with disabilities in graduation, employment, post-secondary enrollment and functional skills compared to that of their typically developing peers. Kirby offers the alternative assumption that enhanced access and inclusion with a greater emphasis on self-advocacy and determination to access more educational opportunities, with a shift away from the assumption that somehow implies that special education is still separate in terms of certain placements, curricula and types of instruction. This is further exasperated, Kirby suggests, by RTI to the extent that for the individual who may eventually qualify for services under this model will end up being educated in a separate environment a la tier three, an aspect that the author references that the designers of the model themselves stated should be removed. The alternative is a push for a transformation to not only a fully included, but fully integrated model, where there is individualized instruction for all students (general and special education students) without a regard for specific labels, from highly qualified and diversely trained educational professionals, where all classrooms and students are being assessed with a diverse battery of individually appropriate assessments and all students are receiving evidence-based practices. Russo-Campisi’s paper addresses the implicit assumptions with evidence-based practices (EBP) and how the research-to-practice gap still persists, despite a so-called EBP trend and movement, due in part to lack of clarity regarding the confirmation of what is considered a EBP based on evidence-based reviews (EBR), peer-reviewed research (PRR) and in turn how that information is clearly disseminated. Evidence-Based Practices in Special education: Necessary Shift in Current Assumptions highlights these assumptions being threefold: Terminology, where the assumption holds that the terms EBP, EBR, and PRR are compatible and interchangeable, when in fact they hold different meanings in the world of research, Legal Mandate, where the assumption is that there is a requirement by law to provide EBP when case law and interpretation suggests otherwise, and EBP has to be implemented with fidelity, where practitioners are expected to adhere to the exact
123
160
Child Youth Care Forum (2017) 46:157–160
procedures set forth in the research, despite the need to differentiate and modify, which is considered a compromise of the integrity of the intervention. The alternative presumption is that the focus must be on how this vital information on EBP is actually disseminated. A suggested partnership needs to be forged to enhance the researcher-practitioner relationship. Furthermore, a consideration should be made by researchers to embrace the notion of practice based evidence; to understand from a practitioners perspective as to what actually works when implementing interventions in an actual classroom as opposed to a controlled environment. There has been an increasing amount of research and identified EBP involving technology. In the final paper, The Use of Technology to Improve Education, Nepo examines the implicit assumption that the use of technology by students with disabilities to enhance overall access, as mandated and protected by legislation, perpetuates and amplifies their individual differences. The author suggests that this issue is threefold: reactive because the technology is either not readily identified or available, discriminative for those who have not been identified or labeled and therefore cannot receive the mandated individualized instruction they may need to access technology that may be available for all students in an inclusive classroom, and assistive technology focuses on disability, what the student cannot do as opposed to their ability. The alternative assumption is rooted in Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This model offers a wide range of access that is intended to encompass any and all learners in a given learning environment, with multiple modalities for engagement, representation, action and expression. This type of universal access and design shifts away from the need to highlight individual differences or seek additional support due to the model’s intention to encapsulate all learning needs. Infuse the use of technology and make it available to all students in an inclusive learning environment, we have the concept of UDL with technology as a wave for the future to not only enhance the learning, teaching practices and accessibility for all, but an ability to shift away from special education services as there can be an ability to address the needs of all learners without calling attention to their individual differences. In summary, the four papers for this special section are attempting to shine a different light on a few specific current issues and trends in special education. Some of the papers share certain themes and explore similar aspects and components. They all take the position of not just focusing on the abilities of the identified learner, but also the multitude of environmental factors to create the necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve fit in their given educational ecosystem. The overall purpose of each paper is to examine a specific implicit assumption surrounding the specific topic and issue in special education and offer a set of alternative assumptions with the hope that these papers may stimulate thinking in the field and provide a basis for critically examining policy and practices.
References Tart, C. T. (Ed.). (1975). Transpersonal psychologies. New York: Harper & Row. Thurman, S. K. (1977). Congruence of behavioral ecologies: A model for special education programming. Journal of Special Education, 11, 329–333. Thurman, S. K. (1997). Systems, ecologies and the context of early intervention. In S. K. Thurman, J. R. Cornwell, & S. R. Gottwald (Eds.), The context of early intervention: Systems and settings (pp. 1–17). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Thurman, S. K., Cornwell, J. R., & Korteland, C. (1989). The Liaison Infant Family Team (LIFT) Project: An example of case study evaluation. Infants and Young Children, 2(2), 74–82.
123
