New Perspectives in Special Education

Contemporary philosophical debates

Michael Farrell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN:
  9780415504225
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136469152
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book should be read by everyone who wants to understand special education today.

New Perspectives in Special Education opens the door to the fascinating and vitally important world of theory that informs contemporary special education. It examines theoretical and philosophical orientations such as 'positivism', 'poststructuralism' and 'hermeneutics', relating these to contemporary global views of special education.

Offering a refreshingly balanced view across a broad range of debates, this topical text guides the reader through the main theoretical and philosophical positions that may be held with regard to special education, and critically examines positions that often go unrecognised and unquestioned by practitioners and academics alike. It helps the reader to engage with and question the positions taken by themselves and others, by providing thinking points and suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter.

Perspectives covered include:

• Positivism and empiricism
• Phenomenology and hermeneutics
• Historical materialism and critical theory
• Holism and constructivism
• Structuralism and post structuralism
• Pragmatism and symbolic interactionism
• Psychoanalysis
• Postmodernism and historical epistemology

Anyone wishing to gain a fuller understanding of special education should not be without this stimulating and much needed text.

Chapter 1

Differing roadmaps

Special education, disability and inclusion

Content, aims and readers

New Perspectives in Special Education examines major theoretical positions informing special education. It comprises twelve chapters, a bibliography, and a combined author and subject index. Aiming to help readers engage with and question perspectives they or others may take, the book offers a guide to the main positions held in contemporary special education. The volume is intended for students (and lecturers using the book as a course text) and professionals wishing to consider major underlying perspectives in special education. It has an international remit, as it does not focus on the laws and procedures of any one country. Although the book concerns theory, it also refers to implications for practice.

Perspectives and their concomitants

Perspectives

Perspectives, theory and research methods are related. A ‘perspective’ may imply particular beliefs about the world, the nature of knowledge, society, individuals, and mental states and processes.

For a sociologist such perspectives might be views of ‘humankind’,‘society’, and ‘the interrelation between the individual and society’ (Meighan and Harber, 2007, p. 282). A perspective could include a view of what should be considered crucial properties conditioning ‘human conduct and experience in social order’. It might be concerned with what it is to know or understand the ‘properties of those aspects of social life under investigation’. It may embrace a view of the relationship between what might be seen as ‘academic’ explanations of social life and the development of policies that may be used to ‘direct the everyday affairs of members of society’ (ibid.). In a sociological context, a perspective may be defined as ‘a frame of reference, a series of working rules by which a person is able to make sense of complex and puzzling phenomena’ (ibid. p. 281).

Individuals may hold a perspective because they believe it reflects a ‘true’ position of the world, society, or some other area of discussion. They may consider it is logical or sensible to take a particular perspective. The consequences of doing so might be beneficial for the individual or others, suggesting a moral justification. A perspective may be held through custom in an unreflecting manner because others hold a similar view. It may be a passive interpretation of the world or may inspire acting in particular ways so consequences follow. Perspectives may be justified on their own account or may be ways of criticising the views held by others.

Theory

The term ‘theory’ derives from the Greek ‘theōria’, meaning viewing, speculation, or contemplation. Theory has been defined as ‘a set of propositions which provides principles of analysis or explanation of subject-matter’ (Mautner, 2000, p. 563). A common distinction is made between ‘practice’, associated with activity and doing, and ‘theory’, as more concerned with contemplation and passivity (ibid. p. 454, paraphrased).

In physics, a theory is a ‘high level explanation’ bringing together many facts and it points observations towards further not yet observed phenomena (Townsend, 1997, p. 3). If observations are in line with the theory it is confirmed, although this does not necessarily mean that it will never be disconfirmed. However, one incontrovertible fact that contradicts a theory will require that the theory is modified or replaced. Whether a theory is correct or incorrect (or perhaps it is better to say the extent to which a theory is adequate) depends on ‘the truth or falsity of the observations that they include and that they predict’ (ibid.).

Since the 1980s, the term ‘theory’ has been used in cultural studies and elsewhere to refer to a particular kind of theory informed by writers such as Derrida, Foucault, and Lacan. This usage tends to suggest relativism towards knowledge and interpretation. Writing of ‘critical theory’ in a broad sense, Macey (2000, p. v) suggests the modern view of theory emerged from ‘an impatience with what passed for common sense and empiricism’. Such theory also constitutes a political demand emerging from the view that theories are ‘never politically innocent’. Theories are considered to express and reproduce political prejudices ‘even when they deny it’. The critical theory of the Frankfurt School aimed to reveal and then neutralise such prejudices (ibid.).

Research

Particular perspectives may influence research methods in the social sciences. A distinction is sometimes made between the assumptions that may underlie the use of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Quantitative methods are often linked with philosophical positions including postpositivism, pragmatism and constructivism and include traditional approaches to ethnography and anthropology (Alexander, 2009, p. 283). These provide ‘structures of determining the nature of reality, the nature of knowing and what constitutes knowledge’ (ibid.). These structures are linked to methodological procedures that dictate particular ways of ‘doing’ and ‘knowing’ and the ‘meaningfulness of the known in social science research’. The structures shape the nature of values and ethics and the process of determining them (ibid.).

On the other hand, qualitative methods may be associated with ‘more liberatory philosophical perspectives and methods of analysis that are grounded in a close scrutiny of human experience’. Among such approaches are poststructuralism (Alexander, 2009, p. 283). These methods emphasise ‘the variability of human experience, the articulation of voice and the social construction of knowledge’. They maintain the view that reality is socially constructed through the ‘communal nature of human contact’. They speak of ‘embodied presence and articulated lived experience’ and the ways these ‘help shape the reality for self and others’ (ibid.).

Overall, perspectives of special education are important because they help orientate different views of what special education is about or what adherents to various perspectives consider it should to be about.

Special education

Special education is defined and discussed at some length in a subsequent chapter of this book. However, a brief definition may be useful before related matters are discussed. Special education has been briefly described as ‘specially designed instruction … to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability’ (United States Department of Education, 1999, pp. 124–125). But special education is broader than instruction, and the term ‘provision’ is perhaps more fitting. For example in Foundations of Special Education (Farrell, 2009) the following definition is proposed:

Special education refers to distinctive provision, including education, for pupils with disabilities and disorders. It is informed by a range of foundational disciplines and encourages academic progress and personal and social development. Special education has identifiable aims and methods.

(Farrell, 2009, p. 1)

Legal definitions of special education tend to relate it to what is considered to be required if a child has a disability or disorder. For example, in England, in the Education Act 1996 is:‘a child has special educational needs … if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him’ (Section 312).

Disability

International and legal definitions of disability

The World Health Organisation (2001) seeks to provide a common language and a shared framework for describing health and health-related matters. It defines disability and functioning and lists environmental factors that interact with them:

• Functioning refers to all bodily functions.
• Disability refers to impairments (problems in body function or structure such as a significant deviation or loss), activity limitations and participation restrictions.

(ibid. p. 3)

Legal definitions of disability (more often considered as disabilities and disorders) relate to a positivist notion. Positivism will be considered in a later chapter but essentially it takes a scientific view. Disabilities are not seen as predominantly social phenomena, for example. They are able to be classified. Individuals with disabilities and disorders can be identified and assessed and provision can be made to ensure they make good progress in their learning and development.

Types of disabilities and disorders (Farrell, 2008) relate to legal and quasi-legal classifications. In the United States, pupils considered to need special education as it is covered by federal law have a defined disability, and the disability has an adverse educational impact. Categories of disability under federal law as amended in 1997 (20 United States Code 1402, 1997) are reflected in the following ‘designated disability codes’:

01 Mentally Retarded
02 Hard-of-hearing
03 Deaf
04 Speech and Language Impaired
05 Visually Handicapped
06 Emotionally Disturbed
07 Orthopedically Impaired
08 Other Health Impaired
09 Specific Learning Disability
10 Multi-handicapped
11 Child in Need of Assessment
12 Deaf/Blind
13 Traumatic Brain Injury
14 Autism.

In England, a similar classification (Department for Education and Skills, 2005, passim) comprises:

• Specific learning difficulties (e.g. dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia)
• Learning difficulty (moderate, severe, profound)
• Behavioural, emotional and social difficulty
• Speech, language and communication needs
• Autistic spectrum disorder
• Visual impairment
• Hearing impairment
• Multi-sensory impairment
• Physical disability.

Similar classifications are used in numerous developed countries. The types, as can be seen, include disorders such as ‘orthopaedic impairment and motor disorder’, ‘disruptive behaviour disorders’, ‘anxiety disorders and depressive disorders’,‘attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’,‘communication disorders’, ‘developmental co-ordination disorder’,‘reading disorder’,‘disorder of written expression’, and ‘mathematics disorder’. ‘Deafblindness’ is an impairment of both hearing and vision. Autism is sometimes located on a supposed continuum of ‘autistic spectrum disorder’. The categories include impairments for example, ‘profound, ‘moderate to severe’ and ‘mild cognitive impairment’, ‘hearing impairment’,‘visual impairment’ and ‘health impairment’.‘Traumatic brain injury’ can lead to impairments and disorders depending on the site and extent of the injury.

The term ‘disability’ is sometimes used (for example in the United States) to refer in a general way to all these disorders, impairments and injuries.

In England, the legal definition of special education distinguishes between ‘disability’ and ‘difficulty in learning’. The definition of ‘special educational needs’ in the Education Act 1996 is:‘a child has special educational needs … if he has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him’ (Section 312). The Act then defines ‘learning difficulty’ stating that a child has a learning difficulty if:

(a) he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age;

(b) he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of his age in schools within the area of the local education authority; or

(c) he is under the age of five and is, or would be if special educational provision were not made for him, likely to fall within paragraph (a) or (b) when of, or over, that age.

(Education Act 1996, Section 312 (2))

It will be seen that in this legal definition, a disability is one of the features (the other being ‘difficulty in learning’) that can lead to a ‘learning difficulty’ which might in turn ‘call for’ special educational provision to be made.

In the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a disabled person is defined as one who has ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. (The expression ‘physical and mental impairment’ is taken to include sensory and learning impairment.)

Other understandings of disability

Definitions and understandings of disability have not always been legal ones. Other ways of envisaging disability have emerged, as later chapters will show. Below is a very brief outline of some of these perspectives. Later chapters explain the terms and the perspectives much more fully.

From a phenomenological standpoint, Merleau-Ponty ([1945] 1982; [1948] 1973) rejects a separation of the experiencing person and the, as it were, external object. That is, he does not accept subject–object dualism. Merleau-Ponty rather takes the view that the body functions as a whole, with perception being the primary mode of embodied consciousness. This view has influenced those theorising about bodily existence and disability. Shildrick (2009) seeks to celebrate the fluidity, unpredictability and connectivity associated with disability, focusing on a view of disability as integral to human differences. The aim is to see disability as a mark of the possibilities of becoming. Instability might be a catalyst for different modes of inter subjectivity. Iwakuma (2002) suggests Merleau-Ponty’s ideas can help one understand ‘disability experiences’ including the process of becoming a ‘fully fledged’ person with a disability (p. 85).

Oliver (1990) develops a historical-materialist account of disablement, suggesting disabled people ‘experience disability as social restriction’ (p. xiv). Oliver’s (1996) definition of disabled people involves: ‘the presence of an impairment’, the ‘experience of externally imposed restrictions’, and ‘self-identification as a disabled person’ (p. 5). All phenomena it is claimed, including social categories, ‘are produced by the economic and social forces of capitalism itself’ (ibid. p. 131). The category of disability is ‘produced’ in the particular form it appears by economic and social forces. Barnes (1998) views the social model of disability as ‘a focus on the environmental and social barriers which exclude people with perceived impairments from mainstream society’. It distinguishes between impairment and disability. Impairment is seen as ‘biological characteristics of the body and mind’. Disability is presented as ‘society’s failure to address the needs of disabled people’. The model offers a ‘framework within which policies can be developed’ focusing on ‘aspects of disabled people’s lives which can and should be changed’ (ibid. p. 78).

Postmodern approaches can encourage a re-examination of opposites such as ‘disabled’ and ‘able-bodied’. Definitions of disability do not necessarily have to imply that all the experience of disability has to be viewed as a negation of ability. The experience of disability has its own realities. Titchkosky (2002) states ‘it is still common to regard the disabled body as a life constituted out of the negation of able-bodiedness and, thus, as nothing in and of itself’ (p. 103). Poststructuralism questions this sole perspective that disability is inevitably the negative opposite of normality. Also, Danforth and Rhodes (1997) suggest the acceptance of concepts such as ‘disabled’ hinders efforts to move towards more inclusive schooling. Th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the author
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter outlines
• 1 Differing roadmaps: special education, disability and inclusion
• 2 Creative tensions? Contemporary special education and its critics
• 3 A scientific stance: positivism and empiricism
• 4 Being and interpretation: phenomenology and hermeneutics
• 5 Economic forces and suspicion: historical materialism and critical theory
• 6 Seeing the big picture and making knowledge: holism and constructivism
• 7 Understanding structure and its dismantling: structuralism and poststructuralism
• 8 Working things out and bestowing meaning: pragmatism and symbolic interactionism
• 9 Psyche and language: psychoanalysis – Freud and Lacan
• 10 Shifting sands and power/knowledge: postmodernism and historical epistemology
• 11 Taking stock: positivist special education and other perspectives
• 12 Different thinking and reviewing provision: implications for special education of different perspectives
• Bibliography
• Index