Macro-social validation: Referencing outcomes in behavioral disorders to societal issues and problems

The field of behavioral disorders needs to broaden its agenda to address larger issues and problems of great concern to our society. These needed efforts include ensuring school safety; identifying children vulnerable to gang membership; intervening proactively to prevent school dropout; participating in delinquency prevention efforts; proactively addressing youth violence issues in collaboration with other disciplines and agencies; controlling the transport of dangerous weapons across school boundaries; and reducing bullying, sexual harassment, and mean-spirited teasing within the context of schooling. Professionals in the field of behavioral disorders have the skills, knowledge, and expertise to play a significant leadership role in targeting and positively impacting these social problems. However, we rarely assume such a leadership role in addressing them directly, nor do we consistently promote our collective capabilities in this regard. We should consider the example of other professions, such as medicine and psychology, that make powerful public health contributions to solving problems of great concern to the larger society (e.g., drug and alcohol use among youth). In so doing, we may achieve a level of macrosocial validation for some of our contributions that does not currently exist. The absence of this validation does not serve us well in the continuing public debates about the value of general education, special education, and the allied subspecialties (Gresham & Lopez, 1996). Perhaps in no field is there a more glaring disconnect between the availability of proven research-based methods and their effective application by consumers than in education. Commentaries by Carnine (1993, 1995) and Kauffman 0 996) have done much to highlight the gaps that persist in the field of education in this regard. Educators often seem to resist empirically supported innovations that represent more effective practices. The specific reasons for such resistance are not always clear; however, their unfortunate effects are often palpable. For example, Kauffman (1981, 1993, 1996) has noted that the education profession is characterized by continuous change but little sustained improvement because the relationship between reliable, effective practices and their widespread adoption remains weak. Many consumers and practitioners of education continue to embrace facilitated communication, the concept of multiple intelligences, and whole-language approaches to teaching beginning reading to children who are at risk for school failure in the face of mounting evidence of (a) the invalidity of the assumptions underlying these methods and (b) their demonstrated lack of effectiveness for the purposes for which they are used. Such ignorance or rejection of scientific evidence provides grim testimony to the validity of the assertions by Carnine and Kauffman (cf. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1994; Green & Shane, 1994; Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995; Lieberman & Lieberman, 1990; Lyon & Moats, 1997). Substantial numbers of educators seem to ignore the concept of best practices and rely upon a hodgepodge of activities, unplanned curricula, and conceptually incompatible interventions to accomplish teaching, learning, and management goals. The Maturity of Education as a Profession Carnine (1997) has made the case that, compared to medicine, psychology, and engineering, education is an immature profession. One of the hallmarks of such professional immaturity is the failure to develop and use cohesive knowledge bases in those contexts where it is possible. In education, there appears to be ample opportunity to achieve this goal-for example, in the domains of phonics-based approaches to teaching beginning reading and the use of behavior management procedures that produce reliable, socially valid outcomes. However, the first question that educators seem to pose regarding a potentially effective innovation is "Is it ideologically acceptable or politically correct? …