Talk:Special education/Archive 1

message: Is there any need for this section to be included at all, as an encylopaedia entry I feel that this is uneccessary. Any comments?  --Brideshead 19:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  derogatory terms 

message: In terms of representing a worldwide view of special education I feel that the section on the United States is massively too long and detailed.  I have heavily cut it down to a basic outline allowing other countries the room to write about their system and have created a new article Special Education in the United States to carry the full original USA section which is very detailed and comprehensive. --Brideshead 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: I dunno, but reading this page, the allusions to nazi germany and eugenics seem to promote a specific point of view on this?
:I agree, hence I have added the verify tag and tagged the offender. Skinnyweed 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems a bit biased 

message: I removed the Acronyms section because it seemed to bloat the article; it would be better to link to such a list externally or at least split it off to its own article. It also seemed arbitrary: why acronyms in particular instead of a general glossary? - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Acronyms" section 

message: I originally removed this section as I fail to see the import, however have reworded it to a more general statement of additional support.  The method of implementation and terminology used for support for learning in mainstream varies from school to school, region to region and country to country. --Brideshead 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: in class suppport

message: *Special education is the education of physically or mentally handicapped students whose needs cannot be met in an ordinary classroom
I reverted this edit.  it is an over simplification using language (handicapped, ordinary) which are considered inappropriate, even offensive in some areas. --Brideshead 11:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revert

message: *'Special education' is an educational alternative to the general education for those having singular needs or disabilities, as handicapped or maladjusted people, slow learners, or gifted children.
Oh my goodness, this is even worse!  The appalling "handicapped" is back and now coupled with the even more offensive "maladjusted".  I don't understand the need to change it at all.  Perhaps if you could explain your reasons here, they could be discussed and a compromise reached.  As it is this wording is unacceptable and highly, highly offensive.  --Brideshead 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REVERT INTRO

message: These may all be valid definitions for the area in which YOU live, however these definitions are not the same everywhere.  Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia.  Mainstream is the general education provided as standard to all pupils without modifications it has nothing to do with special education.  All children have Additional needs of some kinds, the difference between exceptional disabilities and exceptional needs is only valid in your jurisdiction not worldwide. The term maladjusted is little known/used in the UK, except as a derogatory term.  Please bear in mind that this is NOT an American encyclopaedia. --Brideshead 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Wide Viewpoint

message: This is an encyclopaedia.  The introduction must be clear and unambiguous, stating general facts, not related to a particular (US) jurisdiction. I've rewritten this intro as it was a mess of someones pet viewpoints which would be unintelligble to a casual reader.  --Brideshead 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a confusion of terms here, though. I don't see any problem with your first sentence: "Special education is education programs ..." (although I don't like the use of the singular "is" with the plural "programs"). Your second sentence is confusing: "Special education is known as programs of inclusion." It isn't really true - special education has its own history which has now become intertwined with inclusive education. Inclusion (from what I can tell) seems to be a methodology within special education and at this point in time "inclusive education" might be the preferred term for what was formerly known as "special education" - but there really needs to be some citational support for this, not just statements. Also, the Frank Bowe material really is not appropriate for the first paragraph. It is too specific, and like it or not, it does represent single point of view. The "happier note" thing as well really does have to go. Nposs 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But you are the one who added the "singular" according to this. What comment are you responding to? Nposs 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if inclusion cannot be equated with special education, why do you insist upon making it so prominent in opening paragraph. Isn't inclusion just one method among many in special education? Nposs 21:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think your point is understood. However, we really need some sort of reference or citation to support your assertion. Otherwise, at least to me, it appears to be original research (see WP:OR). Do you have any such reference you can supply? Also, am I wrong in suggesting that inclusion is only one methodology among many employed in special education? (Also, please reconsider the tone of your contributions to the discussion. There is no need to be impatient or condescending.) Nposs 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific about the information you feel is lacking from the article. For example: section headings, methodology, theories, etc.? Nposs 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to be more careful with this terminology. "Inclusion" has a specific definition in special education and can be contrasted with "Mainstreaming" and "Full inclusion" (reference). According to the 1997 IDEA, inclusion is legally required except in cases where "the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." () That is to say, there are other methodlogies in teaching students with special needs. According to these two articles ( and ) there is still debate about the extent to which "inclusion" is the appropriate teaching method for all students. This point of view also needs to be expressed in the article (as part of WP:NPOV). At the same time, this information is very specific to the US and this Wikipedia article should also reflect the diversity of approaches found in other countries. (I have no resources about this at the moment.) Nposs 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: introduction

message: I understand that inclusion; full inclusion, mainstreaming, etc. (as well as tailor-made instruction outside of regular classrooms) are all different methods within the general field of special education.  I just need to clarify one thing.  A special school is a school catering to students who have special educational needs.  Therefore, special schools do not have regular classrooms.  A regular classroom consists of students who do not have special educational needs.  Special education is only provided when there are regular classrooms inside the school.  Special schools don’t have regular classrooms; therefore special education is not provided there.  And what does outwith mean? I looked it up in the dictionary and there’s no such word.  I don't understand why the article can't state "outside" the regular classroom...it's just saying that services can be provided outside the regular classroom.  That includes special classes and resource room. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)
I have no problem with the removal of outwith if it's a specifically British English word, see here for clarification on the word which, 69.117.20.128 does indeed exist.  I do however dispute your definition of special education above.  Special education is simply education which is tailored to meet specific needs.  The term does not imply anything about taking place only in the context of "regular" teaching.  'Special Education in mainstream' more fits the usage you are trying to construct. --Brideshead 11:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As mainstreaming is but one type of special education, I do not support writing that "special education is implemented by placing students with singular needs or disabilities into the general classrooms". Although the "can be implemented" version is an acceptable compromise, it would be preferable to remove the sentence from the introduction. Specific approaches to special education can be discussed further down in the article sections. Rhobite 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Inclusive education should also be moved from the opening introduction. Perhaps the best solution would be to add a separate section in the article title "Methodologies" or "Methods" or something like that. That would be an appropriate place to discuss some of the terms above. Nposs 03:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification 

message: "Outside the regular classroom" is very clear to many people.  It's not a consensus when there are only two people who agree. (RainingmySoul 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside the regular classroom is the better one.. 

message: Universal special education services is the subject of some discussion internationally. This has led to the inclusive education movement.
I added this line because this has to do with inclusive education.  (RainingmySoul 19:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is wrong with this line? 

message: Special education consists of educational programs designed to support students whose singular needs or disabilities require special teaching approaches, equipment, or care within or outside a regular classroom.
Why can't we use this opening paragraph? I don't see anything wrong with it...How can special schools provide special education if they don't even have regular classrooms? Special education is named because there were students who deviate from the norm in the mainstream schools.  That's why they decided to name it special education to help those people become part of the mainstream.   Special schools do not help students with special needs adjust as quickly as possible to the mainstream of the school and community because they don't have regular classrooms.  (RainingmySoul 20:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are taking into consideration the history of special education which has included (and continues to include) education in specialized settings outside of the regular classroom. "Mainstream" has a very specific meaning in special education: "Generally, mainstreaming has been used to refer to the selective placement of special education students in one or more "regular" education classes."reference. This is a general article and should take a overview of the subject. Due to your concern over placing an empahsis on inclusion, I added the sentence about the United States and the requirement by law that children be taught in the least restrictive environment. Nposs 20:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: The new term 'additional support needs'
The definition of 'special educational needs' traditionally only applies to children and young people with particular types of learning needs. The new concept of 'additional support needs' refers to any child or young person who, for whatever reason, requires additional support for learning. Additional support needs can arise from any factor which causes a barrier to learning, whether that factor relates to social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic, disability, or family and care circumstances. For instance, additional support may be required for a child or young person who is being bullied; has behavioural difficulties; has learning difficulties; is a parent; has a sensory or mobility impairment; is at risk; or is bereaved. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19516/39190
A child may require additional support for a variety of reasons. These may include those who are being bullied, are particularly gifted, have experienced a bereavement, or are not attending school regularly, as well as those who have behavioural or learning difficulties, mental health problems, or specific disabilities such as deafness or blindness. http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/inclusiveeducation/additionalsupportforlearning/theact.asp
Additional support needs can be short or long term. For instance, additional support may be needed for a child or young person who:
is being bullied
has behavioural or learning difficulties
is deaf or blind
is particularly gifted
is bereaved
is not a regular attender.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19549/39372
Special education is the provision of extra help, adapted programmes, learning environments, or specialised equipment or materials to support children and young people with their learning and help them participate in education.
Many children and young people have special education needs. This can include learners with disabilities, learning difficulties, communication or behaviour difficulties, or sensory or physical impairments. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=7301&data=l
If it helps, these are the four documents I used and the sections I referred too.  It's worth noting that the term special needs is no longer used in Scotland as it was felt to be negative and exclusionary.  --www.secularism.org.uk 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The revision from "Sped" is interpreted as an insult to Sped is comparable to "retard" is an unnecessary use of a contentious word.  The revision does not add significantly to the understanding of the term and looks to be only included for "shock" value.  i propose it be reverted to the original statement.  --Brideshead 12:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: abbreviations

message: You have simply waited a while and now begun to reintroduce all of the contencious issues which were debated here above previously and an agreement reached.  
* The use of the term "singular disability" has no basis in actual research, there is no evidence of its use in published research.  This was discussed previously.  
*  The assertation that special education can only be provided in mainstream schools as "special schools do not have regular classrooms"  (an argument which I, and others, failto follow) was discussed previously and the decision made that this is unsourced and based on your own original research WP:NOR.  
This is a blatant attempt to stagnate an article at your own edit, which is clearly against WP policies.  --Brideshead 13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sick and tired of hearing that special education is only for those with disabilities.  This is simply untrue.  Students with singular needs are those who do not have a disability but still are having difficulty with school.  For example, people with behavioral problems.  
(69.117.20.128 - talk)
That is your definition and your perspective.  It does not correspond to language and terminology used in references worldwide.  There is no source to justify the use of the terms "singular need" or "singular disability", you just made them up, they don't mean anything to anyone else!  WP:NOR --Brideshead 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: user 69.117.20.128

message: You know, I have to agree with this user.  Gifted children do not have disabilities.  So where do you categorize them? They have difficulties with school.  Therefore, they are part of special education.  People with behavioral problems (most of them do not have disabilities) are included in special education because they have difficulty functioning in school.  Is there another word you can use to describe this type of people? I know singular may not be the best word to use.  But is there something else? Could we use special needs instead of saying disabilities? At least saying “special needs” is more neutral.  Tell me what you think.  Or anyone out there who would like to contribute to this conversation. (Heliciation 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed above (with lots of references provided, many of which are now used in the article.) "Singular needs" is not found in any of the literature (with the exception of the dictionary definition - which one must assume was not written by specialists). "Special needs" occurs in most of them. I would take this as evidence that "singular needs" is not a common part of the vocabulary for special education. I would also suggest that "consensus" means a solution that everyone can agree with. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that editors take exception to the unusual usage of "singular needs." It would be best if the editor who insists on this unorthodox term be willing to compromise with the other editors. Nposs 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay...so can we use the term "special needs" instead of saying disabilities? I agree with the user that special education does not include just those with disabilities.  In the article, it only states those with disabilities. (Heliciation 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment 

message: I am so sick of this discussion, the statement shouldn't need a reference if you knew anything about the implementation of special edcuation.  If teachers in a special school don't provide special education, what do you think they provide.  But fine, here are references:
*  “Contemporary special education teaching strategies are applied across a continuum of educational settings ranging from full-time inclusive general edcuation classrooms to residential treatment facilities and community placements.”  The Special Education Alamanac, pp2,  Edited by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen and Cecil R. Reynolds, Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc (2006) 
*  “Schools for Special Needs explains the system and processes involved in special needs education  …. With details of over 2,000 establishments and guidance from experts in all sectors of special education…”. Schools for Special Needs 2005-2006 11th ed, published by Gabbitas and Kogan Page, 2005  (see list of schools covered; special, mainstream and residential.)
*  Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion by Gary Thomas and Andrew Loxley, Published by Open University Press (2001).  (This book uses the term special education exclusively to refer to special school settings contrasting with inclusive education.)
This ends the discussion here.  Special education is provided in a huge variety of ways.  You are only concerned with mainstreaming of special education, a tiny subset not the whole picture and certainly not the terminology in use in the special education community at large.  --Brideshead 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference

message: Hi,
I have no desire to re-open a topic that has already been beaten to death, but I think that some of the dissention over this page may be due simply to differences in how terms are used in different locations.  In the interest of promoting mutual understanding, allow me to explain what I mean.  
In the US, "special education" was long a *place* where schools would warehouse students who couldn't be successful in regular classrooms.  Often this was in a separate wing, or even a separate building, and a single special education class might include kids with vastly divergent issues, anywhere from learning disabilities to severe autism and MR.  All too often these warehouses provided little effective instruction, if any.  
In the last few years there has been a huge push to change the view of "special education" so that it is no longer considered a place to send students.  Rather, research, "best practices", and education law have been pushing to change this so that special education isn't a location,  but a *service* to be provided to students wherever they are.  Sometimes this is a typical classroom, sometimes not.  
If services are provided in the regular classroom (or on the playground or in the cafeteria ...), this might be called "inclusion" or "mainstreaming," or "collaboration."  Collaborative usually means that a special education teacher is "pushed" into the regular classroom to support kids with disabilities.   Unfortunately, all too often the terms inclusion and mainstreaming just mean that kids with disabilities are just dumped into regular classrooms with no support, taught by regular education teachers without the training to do the job.  
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I am trying to revise the intent of this article.  Rather, it is my hope that this explanation of terms might help to allay conflict.  
One of the things I *like* about this article is that it is trying to avoid addressing special education from a programmatic perspective.  That is to say, trying to describe specialized instruction in general, rather than talking about special education *programs* as implemented in schools in the US, UK etc.   It can be difficult to bridge the differences, I know. 
Best,
Rosmoran 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ==Possible source of ongoing disagreement

message: Hi,
What is "Autism Outreach?" I'm guessing this may be a UK-specific term as I haven't heard it in the US.  Perhaps we could internationalize the terminology somehow.  
Best,
Rosmoran 13:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions regarding section "How is Special Education Provided?" 

message: Hi,
Someone removed the redirect to Gifted education, stating that the article is not only about children with disabilities, and that behavioral problems are not necessarily caused by disabilities.  
I revised the content of the redirect so that includes the "behavioral problems" clarification, and put the redirect template back into the article. 
The redirect needs to be there because the lead section specifically mentions Gifted education as being a type of "Special education".  This leads readers to think that the topic of educating gifted students will be covered in the current article.  Therefore, we need to provide the redirect so that this expectation is not created. 
If there were a section in this article that discusses gifted education, we could place the redirect there rather than at the top of the article.  
If someone wants to create a Gifted education section and move the redirect to that location, please do so.  In this case, we would use the Main Article template, placed immediately beneath the section heading. This template is coded as follows:    and produces the following text:  
::Main article: Gifted education
There may be other ways of solving this problem, but if you want to remove this redirect and do not want to create a gifted education section, please bring the issue up here first so that we can come to consensus on an alternative.
Best,
Rosmoran 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Included redirect to Gifted education 

message: Someone mentioned the need to acknowledge that parents of typically developing children may have concerns about inclusion. This is a good point --- it should definitely be included.  I revised the addition slightly to separate the concerns of some parents of kids with disabilities (that their children may not receive the instructional approaches their children need to learn effectively, for example, kids with dyslexia cannot get the kind of instruction they need in a regular classroom) from the concerns of some parents of typically developing children (that the "inclusion" students may take up an inordinate proportion of the teacher's time and attention).  
Best,
Rosmoran 11:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns of parents of typically developing children

message: tidied up recent addition to criticism section to make it more npov, and to remove unsupported statements.  This is the same as the piece that was put into the learning disability article.  --Vannin 04:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism section

message: Uhmmm .... what happened to the sections that described what special education is, the forms it can take, etc?  The article seems to have a huge hole in it without this information.  There's the initial definition, abbreviations for the term, and then a bulleted list of criticisms.  
Is the problem that special education is handled differently in different countries, so some editors decided to remove the information in order to eliminate conflict about how it should be described?
This article has a very weird structure now, which should be addressed. 
Rosmoran (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections describing what special education is 

message: An editor at Mainstreaming in education first proposed merging Mainstreaming into Inclusion (education).  The current proposal is to merge it into Special education.  If you have opinions about this please feel free to join the discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal? 

message: I have archived this long talk page by pasting the text into Talk:Special education/Archive 1.  Someone started this process a while ago, but never finished.  All of the discussions there seemed to be old (last comment in 2007 or before), but if you want to revive one of them, then please just copy the text of that discussion into a new section on this page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Tigereyes92, you just introduced a bunch of errors, which I have reverted.  Note:
* Segregation is always a full-time placement.  Anything less than full-time is not segregation:  it's mainstreaming or inclusion.
* It's the absence of non-disabled students, not the absence of general ed teachers, that makes a segregated student be segregated.  
* What a special needs student has to do to get a normal diploma depends on the student's location.  Just because New York, in your personal experience, requires passing a high school exit examination to get a diploma does not mean that every single special needs student in the entire world has to pass an exit exam to get a diploma.  Every country, and every state in the U.S., sets its own rules.
* Exclusion is about the placement of the student on a daily basis.  It has nothing to do with what piece of paper is given to the student on the last day of his or her entire school career.  Ryan White was excluded from school at the age of 8 over fears of HIV transmission.  Eight year olds are not generally eligible for high school diplomas.  In fact, if he had remained excluded (eventually the courts forced the schools to allow him to attend school), and if he hadn't died, he would have received a normal high school diploma.
Please remember that you must never write from your own personal experience.  Instead, let me encourage you to find books or magazine articles, and add information from them to this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Segregation and exclusion 

message: Hi,
I have read your guidelines, and I am requesting a link friom thie article to the Special Education Law Blog at:
http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/
The blog is by a neutral, Jim Gerl, a hearing officer, and provides a balanced perspective.
The legal component of special education is growing rapidly, but it is too big to merit full discussion in this general article.
Thanks for your consideration.
Jim Gerl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spedlaw (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that a blog hosted by Blogspot and run by a single person is a terribly good resource.  Sorry!  --ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  request link to Special Education Law Blog 

message: Would special-needs student be the correct spelling?  Sorry for being picky---I was just reading the guidelines of hyphenation and happened to parachute in to see if I was informed enough to comment on the current dispute over the wording of the first sentence.  Anyway, I'll leave it up to all of you to decide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neffk (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if it's two words in regular English, but not if it's a term of the art (in which case, it's considered to be a single word for these purposes, even though it's got a space in the middle; compare the hyphenation of a multiword proper noun like "New York").  I'm not sure how this term is classified these days.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: This edit once again restores an error.  This idea that inclusion of any student with special needs (not just those with significant disabilities) is "uncommon" and "controversial" is simply wrong.  See, for example, "In 2007, 59% of students with LD spent 80%  or more of their in-school time in general education classrooms."  That means that most students with learning disabilities are already being "included" instead of "segregated" or mainstreamed. 
See also:
* "inclusion is an accepted best practice in special education"
* "more than 99 percent of Denmark’s 80,000 learning-disabled children are educated side-by-side with so-called mainstream children, an ideal known as “inclusion.”"
There is nothing "uncommon" or "controversial" about what 99% of students with learning disabilities in one country are already doing, and more than half of these students in most countries are doing, and what is "accepted as a best practice".  The only thing that is uncommon and controversial is the inclusion of students with severe disabilities, like mental retardation.  
Your preferred version does not correctly indicate the important distinction between the challenges of fully including a student with severe disabilities and the triviality of accommodating mild disabilities.  Please remove it again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full inclusion 

message: - Sorry, but I'm getting quite a guffaw from watching you guys fight over various categories of inclusion, which from my perspective seems incredibly petty. From personal experience, I view all inclusion as a joke that simply wastes the time of gifted and average children in the class in which the special child is to be integrated, with little benefit to the special child. Special education should be kept separate. There is no need to distract mainstream students while a special ed teacher struggles to enlarge a disabled child's lifetime occupational possibilities from merely cleaning toilets to taking fast food orders. Anyway, turning back to the inclusion issue, both of you guys might want to back off for a while and calm down. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special education is "special", all right