Epilogue: The Contemporary Crucible: Putting Scientific Evidence to the Test in the Context of Schools

In our daily lives we are constantly testing, confirming, and falsifying hypotheses; and we function as natural scientists, because we have no other choice. Special educators are held accountable for what they say and do in a way that journalists, novelists, and postmodern critics are not. And that is how it should be. Applications of logical inquiry to the needs of people with disabilities is tough, incredibly complex, and time consuming; but no one said it was going to be easy. (Sasso, 2001, p. 187) In his critique of special education's retreat from inquiry and knowledge, Gary Sasso (2001) made it clear that matters of great importance are placed in peril when educators confuse "a science of learning with political and moral goals" (p. 191) in educating students with special needs. While acknowledging that science is not the only means to understanding phenomena in special education, Sasso called the logic of scientific inquiry "the best trick we know so far for solving our most pressing problems" (p. 190). The intent of this epilogue is to consider how scientific evidence is being put to the test in the current context of schools and what failure to rely on empirical data might cost us in the long run. This special issue of Behavioral Disorders was created to convey a deeper understanding about the meaning of science and the definition of what constitutes legitimate knowledge for the social sciences in special education and the field of behavioral disorders. The authors were asked to elucidate rather than debate the meaning of science and to define rather than defend the notion of rigor in the social sciences. The intent of this strategy was to reduce rancor and to highlight efforts in addressing the quality of life for students with emotional or behavioral disorders (UBD). To this end, practitioners and researchers are essential partners. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998), in an earlier examination of science and practice in the field of learning disabilities, suggested that generating support for scientific research in special education is not enough: "All of us must also understand the context in which practitioners use science-based knowledge" (p. 286). In concluding this special issue, perhaps a fundamental question should be asked: What does this discussion of scientific evidence mean to special educators, regular classroom teachers, school psychologists, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, speech clinicians, paraeducators, parents, and administrators responsible for developing and implementing instructional programs in today's schools? What are the tests to which they must submit their evidence? As a practical concern, how a knowledge base is used is as critical as its construction. Using Empirical Evidence in the Context of Schools Educators work in presumptive environments in which certain practices are favored by school systems, often because of custom or social cachet and sometimes because of their empirical support. Too often, the presumptions that undergird educational practices are not probed or questioned, nor are teachers prepared to treat these practices as what they are: presumptions that can be set aside-rebutted by evidence in the positivist tradition-when individual students are ill served by their use. In law, rebuttable presumptions are universal prescriptions that are assumed innocent until proven guilty of causing harm to individuals or of not providing them with appropriate benefit (Crockett, 2001). In allowing for presumptions and for their rebuttal, the law gives privilege to evidence and prevents discrimination. However, for exceptional learners who often require different resources to achieve different results, presumptions can cause harm unless educators recognize these practice preferences for what they are and have the data and the drive to rebut them when necessary (Crockett & Kauffman, 2001). Rebutting Presumptions Using Relevant and Reliable Evidence Special educators work within the presumptive structures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a law that favors certain practices and requires decision makers to consider their suitability when determining the free, appropriate public education (FAPE) of each special education student. …