Introduction to the Special Issue: Changing Conceptions of Special Education

After a long history of exclusion, litigation and legislation now ensure access to a free, appropriate education for students with disabilities. The legal safeguards and processes that have been used to identify and place students in special education were designed to provide access, but they do not guarantee excellence of educational services and outcomes for students with disabilities. As a result, the alignment of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) now mandates the inclusion of students with disabilities in high-stakes assessments of academic achievement and meaningful participation in the general education curriculum. These changes in policy, which were meant to address persistent problems of educational equity, have profound practical implications for the delivery of educational services to all students. Meanwhile, scholarly inquiry into the education of students with disabilities continues to raise exciting possibilities as well as practical challenges for both general and special educators. The University of Delaware's (UD) School of Education invited nationally prominent scholars-six speakers and five policy experts--to present and discuss their perspectives on changing conceptions of special education. The 2-day symposium attracted over 100 practitioners, scholars, and policy makers. Speakers presented papers that explored the theoretical, policy, and/or practice perspectives that shape the experience and structure of education for students with disabilities; lines of inquiry that inform current thinking about special education; challenging areas for future inquiry into the education of students with disabilities; and the future relationship between general and special education. These papers are featured in this special issue. McLaughlin considers views of equity that have emerged in K-12 education practice as a result of intersecting interpretations of civil rights statutes, social science research, and education accountability policies. She traces important shifts in how educational equity is defined, from notions of equal access to equal opportunity to equal outcomes, noting the tension that has resulted from competing concerns for group versus individual equity. She raises the question of whether students with unique needs can ever be treated justly when held to universal standards. She concludes with a proposal that embraces accountability for both group and individual equity. Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, and Ortiz analyze traditional explanations for the disproportional representation of historically underserved groups in special education. These explanations fail to consider the complicated historical and cultural influences on policies and practices that result in disproportionality. Further, traditional explanations may have the unintended effect of reinforcing the assumption that achievement deficits are a defining feature of underserved students. The authors argue for a view of culture that recognizes its regulative, interpretative, and instrumental properties. They recommend critically analyzing the theoretical foundations of research and embracing a multidimensional conception of culture that recognizes the centrality of practice to teachers' professional development. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker describe contrasting perspectives about the response-to-intervention (RTI) initiative, which has engendered considerable interest among policy makers and practitioners. The authors argue that these perspectives, which they associate with IDEA and NCLB, differ in significant ways despite agreement about the importance of early intervention, early identification, and strengthening general education. Among these differences include the role of special education in a multitiered system of service delivery and the use of validated instructional protocols. The authors are especially concerned that the implementation of the NCLB perspective will blur the difference between special and general education, and promote the use of nonstandard and ineffective interventions. …