Abstract
In 2010, Intervention in School and Clinic undertook a project to interview “giants” in the fields of learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disabilities. The purpose of the interviews was to document the perspectives and reflections of leaders who had contributed to their respective fields over several decades (i.e., in most instances spanning back to the 1950s or 1960s) in order to provide a historical context for current and future professionals to envision a successful future. Contributors were asked to discuss their careers and their historical perspectives about their fields and to focus on areas of success and struggles. Interviews from 29 contributors were reviewed for this article, which focuses on concerns and reasons for optimism in both fields. Themes across interviews are described, along with highlights of contributors’ observations.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.
Over the past 8 years, Intervention in School and Clinic (ISC) has published interviews with 29 leaders in the fields of emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) and learning disabilities (LD). The inception of the project came from two sources. At the annual CEC convention in Seattle in 2009, the editors of ISC were remembering Lee Wiederholt, who had passed away in 2007. One topic of this discussion centered on the loss of institutional knowledge when one of the field’s giants passes away. The editors suggested that ISC should engage in interviewing some of the prominent leaders in the field of LD and document their perspectives about their careers and the field. This would be a valuable contribution to the field, and there was a sense that it was important to do this now. The second source came from the work of the Janus Project (http://mslbd.org/what-we-do/janus-project/what-is-the-janus-project.html), whose participants were equally interested in documenting the perspectives of leaders in the field of EBD. Special acknowledgment goes to the leaders of Janus, Drs. James Teagarden, Marilyn Kaff, and Robert Zabel, for their contributions and excellent work. Sadly, the profession has lost four of these giants in the last several years—Drs. Tom Lovitt, Janet Lerner, Eleanor Guetzloe, and Richard Simpson. The field owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to them and to all of the outstanding contributors who have provided such a depth of historical perspective about the fields of EBD and LD. It is important to note that this project is ongoing with more interviews to come.
It is of particular interest that this group of professionals began their careers in education prior to the passage of Public Law 94-142 (1975). In their interviews, they described what the field was like in the 20 to 25 years prior to its passage. For those in the field whose knowledge of special education begins with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, these historical perspectives about the time leading up to the current system of special education is fascinating and highly instructive about the past, leading up to where we are now. Beverley (Bev) Johns discussed just how important legislation has been and relayed the profound story of her student whose mother would take her to school every year on the first day of school, beginning in Kindergarten, only to be repeatedly denied services.
The principal would take one look at her and say, “Sally can’t go to school. She has very significant disabilities. We don’t serve children like Sally at school.” This went on until the time she was 10 years old, when Illinois passed a mandate saying that all children had the right to go to school. (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2015, p. 66)
Mary Kay Zabel described this moment as, “The light of day, sunlight! Our kids are no longer in the attic, and they’re not in the basement” (Teagarden & Kaff, 2018, p. 258).
Also fascinating were the discussions about the relationships contributors had with one another and with the fields’ original architects. For example, Frank Wood spoke about his boss, Evelyn Deno; Norris Haring described being recruited by Bill Cruikshank and how he attended lectures by Abraham Maslow and Clark Moustakis; and Janet Lerner shared her experiences as Sam Kirk’s student and how she took a course from Alfred Strauss and Laura Lehtinen, probably the only time they taught this course together. For those who have studied the history of the fields of LD and EBD, these stories describe a lineage across generations and help to better understand the evolution of ideas and practice in both fields.
The focus of this article is on contributors’ perspectives about the current state of the field—in particular, their concerns about where the field is now, and also their reasons for optimism as they point to what the field has accomplished over the time spanning their careers. The intention of this article is twofold—to attempt to synthesize the perspectives of contributors and to encourage the reader to read the original interviews. The content is rich and broad, and it would not be possible to highlight the complete set of words of wisdom. For those with an interest in these fields, reading the originals will be time well spent.
Concerns About the Field
Contributors expressed a variety of concerns related to the fields of LD and EBD. These concerns emerged from discussions about the past, the present, and the future and focused on (a) lack of funding and other resources, (b) problems with definition and identification procedures, (c) dissatisfaction with service delivery, (d) frustration with teacher preparation, (e) concern with ongoing stigma associated with mental health and related treatments, and (f) concerns related to research.
Lack of Funding and Other Resources
A major concern voiced by many contributors was an overall lack of resources for the fields. This included a dwindling of what at one time were rich sources of federal funding. Don Hammill (Chamberlain, 2010a) pointed to the Great Society stimulus of the Johnson administration that led to funds being allocated for the development of new programs, research (including the five centers funded for the study of LD through Title VI-G of Public Law 91-230 in 1970), and support of doctoral students. Sustaining such programs has been difficult. Mary Margaret Kerr noted a continuing and growing divide between the haves and have-nots, including children with disabilities and children of color as members of the have-nots (Teagarden, Zabel, & Kaff, 2015a). This lament went beyond a concern about cyclical trends. Marilyn Zabel observed, If we continue losing resources and schools have to do more with less, we’ll hear things that we heard 30 years ago, like, “Do we really need to educate these kids? Maybe we should be focusing on the gifted kids.” . . . That concerns me a lot. . . . I think the numbers of kids who need services will continue to grow. We might be getting better at what we do, but when caseloads are doubled or tripled and support decreases, you can’t expect to provide the quality programs that these children deserve. (Teagarden & Kaff, 2018, p. 260)
Bev Johns went as far as to suggest that gains made with Public Law 94-142 could be lost at the legislative level. “Every time we face a reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, I become very nervous, because there are those individuals who would like to take away some of the rights of children” (Kaff et al., 2015, p. 68).
Frustration was also expressed that cutting funding was a bad social investment strategy. As James Kauffman stated, “We don’t have a lot of good cost-benefit studies in education, but you can compare the cost of educating the child with the cost of prison” (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2012, p. 320). In addition to schools, mental health centers and juvenile justice centers are overwhelmed. Richard Whelan observed, Prevention, as we know, does require costly resources, but over time that investment is recovered several times over. It’s hard to convince people to put that initial expenditure out there. (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2011a, p. 188)
The lack of funding also affects schools’ ability to apply models and strategies that are known to be effective in helping students with disabilities. Barbara Keogh (Chamberlain, 2011) and Gerry Wallace (Chamberlain, 2013) described their respective work with private schools that provide individualized and intensive instructional programs designed and implemented by highly trained teachers for students with LD. Each questioned if the favorable results found at these schools could be replicated in public education, given a lack of funding and adequate teacher training.
Problems With Definition and Identification
According to several contributors, both fields have struggled with defining what it means to have a learning disability or an emotional/behavioral disability, especially for the purposes of identifying individuals for services. However, the outcomes of these struggles have differed by field.
Struggles in the field of EBD
Multiple contributors identified the exclusion of students identified with “social maladjustment” as problematic with the definition of EBD. Frank Gresham expressed his frustration, saying, It’s the definition of ED itself and the oxymoronic social maladjustment exclusion. I don’t know why we have not been able, since 1975, to change that. I just never understood why we can’t get together, as a field. (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2014, p. 182)
Richard Simpson expressed the belief that to some degree problems of definition come from a lack of coordination between mental health services and educational services. “It’s very difficult. We have the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] lexicon, we have IDEA [Individuals With Disabilities Education Act] protocol, and it’s a challenge to integrate those two and sort out responsibilities” (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2016a, p. 60).
In terms of operationalizing the definition, Robert Zabel observed that many professionals interpret impairment of a child’s educational performance to mean solely academic performance.
Too often, educational performance has been defined as academic performance. Public education has always been about educating the whole child to participate in a democratic society, being informed, understanding, being able to cooperate, having social skills, “playing well with others,” those kinds of things. (Teagarden & Kaff, 2018, p. 260)
The repercussions from problems of definition have led to what was described as a broad underidentification of students with EBD. As George Sugai observed, “We have not done a good job of considering kids who have behavioral deficits and less overt behavior disorders” (Teagarden, Zabel, & Kaff, 2015b, p. 326). According to Steven Forness, this underidentification means that professionals in the field of EBD are working with children with the most severe problems (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2013). Richard Simpson also recognized that this has had an impact on services: Thirteen to 20% of our school-age population is in need of mental health services. We’re serving a tiny percentage, 1% to 2% of those kids. We’re under-resourced. I think that has been a drag on our capacity to move forward. (Zabel et al., 2016a, p. 60)
Richard Whelan expressed disappointment that the field has not focused more on early identification and prevention, “as Eli Bower wanted us to do in the 1950s. It just didn’t happen, much to the disappointment of many in our field” (Kaff et al., 2011a, p. 188).
Struggles in the field of LD
In the area of LD, operationalization of the definition was also seen as a problem. As Don Hammill posited, The most problematic of these was our complete failure to develop operational criteria that could be used to identify (diagnose) children with learning disabilities and to delineate these children from underachieving or slow learners. We had perfectly good definitions offered by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities and the federal government, which described what learning disabilities were theoretically. We lacked, however, a set of criteria based on these definitions that could be used to identify children who had a learning disability. (Chamberlain, 2010a, p. 315)
From his perspective, this has led to the opposite problem of EBD identification. “Without clear-cut defining criteria, we could not stop our field from becoming a dumping ground for children who evidenced all kinds of problems” (p. 315).
Keogh identified at least two problems in identification procedures: measurement error and the fact that a variety of characteristics account for learning problems.
We tend to focus on the single variable and separate out children with attention deficits and children with LD, although those of us who work clinically know they’re very strongly associated. . . . It’s not just an aptitude/achievement discrepancy. So I think the problem is in part an operational one, and I think it’s also that these are not single variable conditions, and that professional perspectives are influences. (Chamberlain, 2011, p. 60)
Dissatisfaction With Service Delivery
Another set of concerns focused on direct service provision. Several observations focused on placement of students and included concerns about moving toward full inclusion and away from the continuum of services.
Disillusionment with full inclusion
The move toward full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms was recognized by several contributors as having a negative influence on both fields. Although these contributors recognized the positive intent of attempts to provide more normalized experiences for children with disabilities in schools, they questioned whether current practices actually lead to the desired outcomes. Lyndal Bullock observed, We’ve gone from a time when kids were dumped into special education—particularly minority students in behavior disorder classes—all the way to including everybody and providing all services in regular classrooms. A lot of times for students with EBD, that’s just a tutor sitting by them in the back of the room. Such practice, in my opinion, falls short of a student being fully included. (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2018, pp. 194-195)
Also called into question was the lack of integrity in implementing full inclusion and the lack of supports provided in the general education setting. Robert Gable suggested that a combination of factors have led to poor outcomes: We have almost a virtual perfect storm, where we have shrinking public school budgets, we have a limited pool of adequately trained general educators and special educators, and we have a significant turnover. We have a revolving door, so to speak, with people coming and going and many of them have limited knowledge or skill. If you look at the research of Mary Wagner and her colleagues, roughly 30% of elementary school teachers have knowledge of how to serve students with emotional disabilities. (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2017, p. 190)
Dissatisfaction with the move away from the continuum of services
As a corollary to the move toward full inclusion, the move away from the continuum/cascade of services model was seen by some as detrimental to service provision, with the observation that special education is still struggling with the issue of least restrictive environment. Sheldon Braaten framed this as an erosion of infrastructure in that the field is “moving away from focus on the individual needs of students and more on a classroom focus” (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2016b, p. 196), while Eleanor Guetzloe averred that schools tend to worry more about compliance than what to do with students (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2013). Both Virginia Brown and Mary Wood professed a preference for clinical models of service delivery, where there was a more focused effort by professionals who were highly trained to both diagnose specific problems and prescribe interventions (Chamberlain, 2014; Teagarden, Kaff, & Zabel, 2012).
Frustration With Teacher Preparation
Inadequate preparation of teachers to meet the individual needs of students was also identified as a major concern. Dissatisfaction centered on certification programs that purport to prepare special educators to work with students across the broad spectrum of disability categories, with insufficient specialization in any one area. Carl Smith doubted that generic approaches to preparation could be effective in readying teachers to work with students with EBD: Looking beyond a behavior and trying to understand it in context, in addition to the skills for dealing with crisis issues or teaching social skills, I believe that it’s very difficult to develop those understandings and skills in a generic program. (Teagarden, Zabel, & Kaff, 2017b, p. 129)
Janet Lerner recognized that a lack of specialized preparation has a direct effect on students, as they don’t get the necessary intensive instruction by a well-prepared teacher that they need (Giacobbe, 2012).
Given a greater emphasis on full inclusion, the importance of preparing general education teachers to work with children with learning and behavior problems was seen as essential. Frank Gresham noted, I’ve noticed over the years that, in particularly general education, there are absolutely no required courses in teaching-training programs for classroom management. I think that’s an abomination. . . . Most of the problems that teachers complain about are discipline problems, not “I can’t teach reading” or “I don’t like the math book” . . . “they need to at least have experience in coursework, background, and classroom management, just basic classroom management.” (Zabel et al., 2014, p. 183)
In regard to understanding the importance of context in the classroom, Nicholas Long questioned how preparation programs could field programs of study that did not offer a single course in group dynamics: It still is shocking, bewildering, why you can have teachers graduate and not have a real course in group dynamics. Teachers live in groups. They spend the majority of their time in small and large group instruction. . . . This is like certifying swimmers who can’t swim. You throw them in the ocean and you say, “Good luck!” (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2011b, p. 315)
Lack of specialized training was also seen as problematic for other educational professionals. Frank Gresham observed that most school psychologists currently receive the bulk of their training in administering assessments to determine special education eligibility rather than focusing on mental health (Zabel et al., 2014). Both Don Hammill and Robert Zabel recognized that the move toward generic certification has had an impact on the identity of specialists in the field, noting that membership in respective professional organizations has dwindled (Chamberlain, 2010a; Teagarden & Kaff, 2018).
Concern About Stigma and Treatment of Mental Health Needs
One concern specific to professionals in EBD was the continuing stigma associated with children with EBD and/or mental health issues; the stigma including the public’s association of violence. Sheldon Braaten disagreed with this perception. “What is interesting is that people still have the perception that today’s kids are out of control, aggressive, and violent, but the data don’t support that. . . . Aggression data indicate that they are better behaved now than 20 years ago” (Zabel et al., 2016b, p. 196). Susan Albrecht also challenged this perception, stating, “I think what hinders that is the perception of teachers, administrators, peers, that these students are inherently different. I don’t believe that they are” (Kaff, Teagarden, & Zabel, 2016, p. 317). Carl Smith expressed the belief that negative social perceptions can have dire consequences: “If a youngster is experiencing mental health needs, what’s the likelihood that youngster or his or her family will admit that when there could be extreme stigmatization?” (Teagarden et al., 2017b, p. 129).
Related to social stigma is a concern over the treatment of juvenile offenders. The beliefs expressed by several professionals demonstrated a passionate rejection of current practices. In discussing one initiative designed to result in “deinstitutionalization and normalization,” Richard Whelan commented, “Unfortunately, only the first part occurred as planned. We replaced it with a new institution with old names—‘prison and jail’—and now housed within their walls are individuals with mental disorders who do not have access to appropriate treatment” (Kaff et al., 2011a, p. 186). As Sheldon Braaten noted, One of the sad things to come out of that era was a shift in public policy for youth in the direction of seeing public safety as a priority and emphasizing the juvenile justice system rather than rehabilitation. It troubles me that we lock up more kids in the United States than any nation on the planet, and the cost of that far exceeds what we would spend to send them all to Harvard. (Zabel et al., 2016b, p. 196)
Lyndal Bullock attributed this in part to systems failure, specifically a lack of coordinated services at high levels of government.
Over the years, I have worked quite a bit with juvenile justice facilities. I see so many of our young people there with unique mental health needs, yet no efforts on the part of the federal government’s OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) and OSEP to work together in a unified fashion to initiate and support personnel preparation programs and those sorts of things. (Zabel et al., 2018, p. 195)
Specifically in regard to treatment of individuals with mental health problems, Robert Zabel observed, “They are considered bad and needing of punishment instead of education and treatment. Sadly, I think that reflects some prevalent views in our society about criminality and incarceration as treatments” (Teagarden & Kaff, 2018, p. 260).
Concerns Related to Research
Several issues related to research were also expressed as concerns. Frank Wood lamented the amount of money spent on trying to improve the field’s ability to categorize students rather than on strategies that can help students, while Dan Hallahan regretted that the field of LD has focused so much of its funding on placement in general education: Too many research dollars these days are focused on trying to fit students with LD into the general education environment rather than getting back to basic questions of their particular learning characteristics and special education interventions that work best without requiring that the interventions only take place in general education classrooms. (Sayeski, 2013, p. 192)
Don Hammill related issues of identification to problems with research, observing that without clear diagnostic criteria to identify students with LD that researchers cannot select a replicable sample to study (Chamberlain, 2010a).
Reasons for Optimism: Effective and Promising Practices
In addition to expressing concerns about their respective fields, contributors also expressed a general sense of optimism and identified a variety of effective and promising practices. One reason for optimism was simply that the fields now have an extensive literature base with research-based practices. It is noteworthy that this generation of leaders played an extensive role in populating the current research base. One of the most cited reasons for optimism was the recognition of young teachers and educational professionals in K–12 and higher education who are interested in working with children with special needs. Other reasons for optimism focused on (a) evidence-based practices for both fields; (b) systems frameworks, notably positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) and response to intervention (RTI); and (c) provision of supports in context.
Evidence-Based Practice in EBD
Behavioral approaches
A major influence on the field of EBD has been the use of behavioral principles, especially as espoused in applied behavior analysis (ABA). In fact, professionals from both the fields of EBD and LD cited principles of ABA as foundational across the broader field of special education. As stated by George Sugai, “I think our success with PBIS is linked to our grounding in applied behavior analysis” (Teagarden et al., 2015b, p. 324). Richard Whelan tracked the development of behavioral principles to the present-day application of ABA in his interview, observing that “ABA doesn’t predict the instructional methodology or the other interventions that we should be using, but it does help us measure the effectiveness of them” (Kaff et al., 2011a, pp. 186-187). Norris Haring expressed optimism about the future of measurement in the field: We have a brilliant future tightening our own measurements in education. Again, I do think that single subject designs are the answer. As we become more refined, as we become more interested in making trend lines to show what we are actually teaching.” (Teagarden, Zabel, & Kaff, 2013, p. 125)
It was also observed that behavioral principles could be utilized in a variety of ways in preparing teachers. Tanis Bryan found that engaging students in participatory action research by having them collect and analyze data about their own behavior and the behavior of others was an effective approach in helping students challenge their perceptions of reality and identify objective evidence (Curtis, 2016).
Psychoeducational approaches
In addition to the use of behavioral approaches to help children with EBD, Richard Whelan suggested that psychoeducational approaches could also be used to help children. He noted the importance of encouraging children with EBD to express their feelings about events in their hour, day, and week.
Clearly, we can’t control our feelings but we can learn to control the thoughts that produce them. These children can be taught the tools to express their feelings to those they trust. (Kaff et al., 2011a, p. 187)
Others agreed that an integrated approach could be valuable. Frank Wood stated that a focus on psychoeducational and behavioral approaches could make for a stronger program. Steven Forness put it this way, I’ve always been committed to looking beneath the behavior—even though it’s almost [a] heresy in the field of behavior disorders to do so. . . . If we don’t look beneath the overt behavior, I think we’re missing a big opportunity to more effectively respond and/ or refer for additional help from psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers and to bring the family into the treatment process. (Zabel et al., 2013, p. 257)
Evidence-Based Practice in Learning Disabilities
In the field of LD, Tom Lovitt identified three main areas of evidence-based practice that now support the field. First are specific academic interventions that have been found to be effective in the areas of reading, writing, and arithmetic. He stated, “I think in many schools and many classes a lot of the advanced ideas in reading, for example, have been taken advantage of, and it’s been a real boon for a lot of individuals” (Chamberlain, 2010b, p. 56). Continuing on, Lovitt discussed the research base on learning strategies and study skills. “A number of researchers have designed procedures and modified curricula so that the major aspects of various topics are more easily grasped” (p. 56). Lovitt’s third emphasis was on social skills and social skills training. “At the very least, because of those efforts, the majority of educators now believe that youngsters’ social skills can be changed—if not completely corrected, at least moved in a more appropriate direction” (p. 56).
Systems Frameworks
Another reason for optimism espoused by a number of contributors revolved around two systems frameworks that have been developed to better meet the needs of students. For EBD, the system discussed was PBIS. For LD, the system was RTI.
Positive behavioral interventions and supports
Michael Nelson expressed strong advocacy for the use of PBIS in schools, stating, “I believe at the bottom of my heart that as a framework, positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) are absolutely on the money as far as supporting kids and staff in ways that make schools more fundamentally user-friendly environments” (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2015, p. 241). Frank Gresham would like to see the stone roll the other way, suggesting that a focus on student strengths and positive replacement behaviors results in positive momentum (Zabel et al., 2014). One lesson learned is that punitive approaches are typically ineffective for students with the greatest needs. As George Sugai put it, “Classrooms and schools that have negative school climates, heavy use of reactive management, and zero tolerance are not good places to implement specialized supports for individual students” (Teagarden et al., 2015b, p. 324).
Response to intervention
For professionals focusing on LD, RTI was the framework most discussed as having an effect on the field, and probably best described as a promising practice rather than an effective practice, as professionals questioned implementation practices and commitment to resources long term. It is important to note that these interviews took place over the past 8 years, during which time RTI has continued to evolve. As a general education support system, most models of RTI implement a three-tier system with three levels of progressively intensive supports. If effectively implemented, RTI should assist in distinguishing between students with LD and students who struggle academically for other reasons, which, according to Don Hammill (Chamberlain, 2010a), has been an ongoing problem in the field. Hammill and others expressed the belief that RTI has much to recommend it, including highly capable professionals who serve as advocates, the use of ABA principles to drive practice, and the test-teach-test-teach procedure, which is likely attractive to teachers (Chamberlain, 2010a). However, drawing on previous experiences with best practices, there was a degree of skepticism. Hammill stated, We all hope that it will be successful. The schools, however, have a long history of adopting, implementing, adapting, watering down, and finally unobtrusively dropping innovations (especially those that are costly in terms of money and teachers’ time) before moving on to something else that is perceived as new. I suspect that the three-tier model will be around for some time; though the RTI component might be phased out or scaled down . . . due to its costs and problems involving implementation. (Chamberlain, 2010a, p. 316)
Professionals in EBD also identified RTI as a promising practice, though unproven through research, for use in providing supports for students who struggle with emotional and behavioral problems. Michael Nelson noted, You don’t wait for kids to fail. You try to implement things that support and build, but when students start to struggle, you identify them immediately through the process of monitoring their performance. I think the concepts of using performance-based academic and behavior measures and putting into place a framework that enables us to establish a continuum of diverse strategies is a really good way. (Zabel et al., 2015, p. 241)
Providing Supports in Context
Several lines of thought centered on the importance of understanding context in providing supports at different levels of service provision. In addition to service provision at the local level of the classroom, context is important when considering more extensive systems at the district and state level. George Sugai focused on the application of applied behavior principles in educational contexts.
Many districts and states have many of the important elements; however, they lack the opportunity, capacity, and experience to establish an effective, efficient, and relevant organizational system to maximize implementation fidelity and student benefit. Without this system, every new challenge or problem is treated independently and reactively. . . . Prevention becomes that primary mode of operation: prevention of new problems and prevention of occurrence of old problems. (Teagarden et al., 2015b, p. 327)
In regard to the local classroom level, Tom Lovitt offered a contrasting perspective to concerns expressed about placement. Lovitt suggested, “Rather than be so concerned with place we should be more concerned with the circumstances of the place” (Chamberlain, 2010b, p. 58). Robert Nelson agreed and asserted that the primary focus of the field should be on support systems for students and for teachers.
Mary Margaret Kerr and I tried to advocate for change in the concept of full inclusion to one of supported inclusion. The support needs to go, first of all to the student, who is being placed in an environment where he needs a lot of understanding and support. That support also should focus on a whole lot of dimensions of living, not just academic. And support also has to go to the providers. (Zabel et al., 2015, p. 240)
Susan Albrecht suggested that an integrated services model of inclusion with wraparound services and sufficient supports could be effective. How the field incorporates what has been learned in more experimental settings into school settings also requires attention. Jeffrey Sprague stated that school leaders need to know how to incorporate evidence-based practices and advocated for more research on implementation science, “ways to market and integrate multicomponent interventions to the field” (Teagarden, Zabel, & Kaff, 2017a, p. 328).
Context is also essential in understanding individual difference. In regard to contextualizing teachers’ understanding of their students with disabilities, Frank Wood advocated for preservice special education teachers to first be prepared in general education as a foundation for an add-on specialization in special education (Zabel, Kaff, & Teagarden, 2011). In discussing the role of context in relation to family and school, Barbara Keogh observed that this led her to a better understanding of the individual differences of her students.
It made me aware that one program doesn’t necessarily fit all. And this is one of my concerns about the way in which education is going, that we’re going into a one-program emphasis. . . . I’m not sure that accounts for individual variations. (Chamberlain, 2011, p. 58)
Richard Whelan echoed the need for an individualized approach and to have a diversity of strategies and approaches from which to choose in working with children, noting that in terms of content, the field knows a lot, but that knowledge needs to be applied in context.
I am often asked: “Well, you were trained in psychoanalysis. Does that stuff work?” “Of course it works, and we helped many children with it.” And they say, “Well, you’ve done life-space interviewing. Does that work too?” “Well, of course it works.” . . . “Now, do token systems work?” “Yeah, they do work. But, sometimes they don’t.” And that’s why I say that children are the best teachers. They tend to let us know what works for them. If nothing else in this interview is memorable, I hope this simple message is remembered. (Kaff et al., 2011a, p. 187)
Conclusion
Rarely do members of a professional field have the opportunity to reflect on the perspectives of so many giants in their field at a single point in time. Although the contributors to this project would claim that they have stood on the shoulders of giants, it now falls on the current generation to stand on the shoulders of these outstanding leaders to guide the fields of EBD and LD into the future. The reflections and perspectives captured in the interviews for this project provide great insight into concerns and reasons for optimism about both fields and provide a foundation for envisioning potential pathways for effective practice. The field of EBD and the field of LD have differences, but also many similarities, one of which is professionals who are dedicated to the effective instruction of children who struggle in school. It is interesting to note that both fields, in the grand scheme of professions, are relatively young. In moving toward the next stage for these fields, it is with great admiration and appreciation that their members thank this august body of professionals for their contributions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.