Abstract
In this issue of the Journal of Special Education’s (JSE) Golden Anniversary volume, we highlight historical writings (1990–1997) when the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 94-142) was amended by Congress with an official title change to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990 (P.L. 101-496) and broader extensions in 1997 (P.L. 105-117). With the support of the IDEA reauthorizations, special education continued to evolve with advances that sparked increased attention to issues such as postsecondary transition planning, expanding services for individuals with autism and traumatic brain injury, improving services with functional behavioral assessment and behavior support plans, and expanding access to general curriculum in later years, in addition to continued discussion about free, appropriate public education, individualized education programs (IEPs), identification of disabilities, least restrictive environments (LREs), and full inclusion. Research methodologies used to identify, validate, and/or document the effectiveness of practices also evolved to raise awareness of the importance of efficient and effective methods of data collection and data analysis. In this issue, we have reprinted a piece by Kenneth J. Ottenbacher that offers a supplemental means to quantify data patterns in single-case research that has traditionally relied on visual analysis of graphically displayed data as the primary data analytic method. Discussion on research methodologies, including single-case research, continue to remain relevant and essential today as the field explores the best practices for designing, implementing, and reporting special education research.
In addition to the reprinted piece, we have annotated four other articles that highlight some of the historical discussion on important issues, trends, and practices in special education in the 1990s.
Merrell, K. W. (1990). Differentiating low achieving students and students with learning disabilities: An examination of performances on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 296–305.
Appropriate identification and classification of students with learning disabilities (LD) and the differentiation of them from students with low achievement has remained controversial for decades. In this article, Merrell examined differences between groups of students with LD and low performing, at-risk students without disabilities in regard to their ability-achievement discrepancy data. Findings from this research offered important implications, including the need to better define (a) the discrepancy criterion for LD identification, (b) the multidisciplinary team decision-making process, and (c) the use of psychoeducational data for special education decision making and instructional planning. The controversy discussed in this article continues to be very relevant in contemporary research as seen in the continued refinement of LD identification and adoption of response to intervention as an alternative to severe ability-achievement discrepancy.
Goodman, J. F., & Bond, L. (1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 408–422.
The IEP is one of the most important provisions guaranteed through the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) and all of its subsequent amendments for students with disabilities. Although the purpose of the IEP was broadly accepted and acknowledged, Goodman and Bond argued that “[t]he legislative requirements to state explicit instructional objectives, schedules for completion, and objective criteria and procedures for evaluation inevitably constrain educational curriculum and methods” (p. 409) and create “unintended molding influence on instruction and individualization” (p. 409). In this retrospective critique, the authors urged the field to “honor the original ambitions of the IEP—professional accountability, parent participation, individualization in the least restrictive environment—while allowing for greater flexibility in the establishment and promotion of goals and objectives” (p. 418) by considering alternative objectives, using portfolios, videotapes, and/or narrative reviews for evaluation, and substituting methods of instruction for instructional objectives. The value of periodic critiques of the content and practice related to the IEP in the context of its historical purpose remains.
Yell, M. L. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion, and students with disabilities: A legal analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 389–404.
LRE decision making for students with disabilities has been a challenge for educators and schools. In this article, Yell discussed the policy on LRE as mandated in the IDEA, examined four LRE court case rulings (from 1989 to 1994), and provided recommendations for educators and school districts in determining LRE for students with disabilities. Yell’s recommendations based on principles derived from the court cases remain critically relevant today as schools strive to comply with the regulations and to avoid litigation due to violations with IDEA when making placement decisions for individuals with disabilities.
Manset, G., & Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 155–180.
The Regular Education Initiative movement, introduced by former Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeleine Will in mid 1980s, created a big push for full inclusion for students with mild [high incidence] disabilities and prompted a continuing call for reform in special education and general education. As a result, there have been rich conversations regarding the importance of inclusion. The advocacy for inclusion for students with disabilities also resulted in creation of several models; yet research investigating the effects of inclusion has remained limited. In this article, Manset and Semmel conducted a comparative review of 11 research studies representing eight model inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities in an effort to determine (a) what inclusive programs looked like, (b) how to evaluate their effectiveness, and (c) the degree to which these inclusive programs were effective for students with mild disabilities. The critical analysis of model inclusive programs offered by Manset and Semmel suggested the need for more rigorous research with more conclusive data supporting the effects of inclusion for students with mild disabilities. This interest in providing academic and behavior instruction and support for all students, including those with the most extensive needs in inclusive classrooms, continues to be a priority of discussion for policy, research, and practice in both general and special education.
Contemporary Research in This Issue
To round out this issue, we have included an article using a single-case research design to examine the effects of a self-management procedure on the appropriate social behaviors of three students with visual impairment (Ivy, Lather, Hatton, & Wehby). Another article evaluated the postsecondary expectations, priorities, and concerns parents have for their children and youth with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Blustein, Carter, & McMillan). In addition, we included two reviews of literature: one examined participant characteristics (i.e., race, ethnicity, and nationality) in research used by the National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders to qualify evidence-based practices (West et al.), and the other examined research addressing relationships between special education teachers’ working conditions and instructional quality, and academic achievement of students with disabilities (Bettini, Crockett, Brownell, & Merrill). We hope you enjoy the issue and the upcoming one as we continue to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the JSE.