Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past

IF 0.6 4区 教育学 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
J. Kauffman, Bernd Ahrbeck, D. Anastasiou, Jeanmarie Badar, Marion Felder, Betty A. Hallenbeck
{"title":"Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past","authors":"J. Kauffman, Bernd Ahrbeck, D. Anastasiou, Jeanmarie Badar, Marion Felder, Betty A. Hallenbeck","doi":"10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Social policies can be well-intentioned but ineffective in achieving what is intended. They can be undermined or destroyed by their exaggerated or oversimplified caricatures with a single, narrow focus. Caricatures may result in the opposite of the original intent of more carefully crafted variants. Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization are used as examples of a full cycle of policy failure. The shift from mandatory special education to the full inclusion movement (FIM) internationally is noted. Nowadays, the FIM maintains a narrow focus on one aspect of the U. S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with a deeply erroneous interpretation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement. In giving comparatively little attention to other parts of the U. S. law, including free appropriate public education (FAPE), the individual education plan (IEP), and a continuum of alternative placements (CAP), the FIM may become a caricature; emphasizing physical/spatial inclusion to the neglect of FAPE and learning, it may achieve the opposite of what was intended. Not accidentally, IDEA has been criticized as outdated, and it could be revised detrimentally if such criticism, accompanied by alarming international policy trends, dominate thinking about special education. Recommendations are made for learning from the history of social policy, including the institutionalization/deinstitutionalization movements.","PeriodicalId":46668,"journal":{"name":"Exceptionality","volume":"29 1","pages":"16 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exceptionality","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

ABSTRACT Social policies can be well-intentioned but ineffective in achieving what is intended. They can be undermined or destroyed by their exaggerated or oversimplified caricatures with a single, narrow focus. Caricatures may result in the opposite of the original intent of more carefully crafted variants. Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization are used as examples of a full cycle of policy failure. The shift from mandatory special education to the full inclusion movement (FIM) internationally is noted. Nowadays, the FIM maintains a narrow focus on one aspect of the U. S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), with a deeply erroneous interpretation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement. In giving comparatively little attention to other parts of the U. S. law, including free appropriate public education (FAPE), the individual education plan (IEP), and a continuum of alternative placements (CAP), the FIM may become a caricature; emphasizing physical/spatial inclusion to the neglect of FAPE and learning, it may achieve the opposite of what was intended. Not accidentally, IDEA has been criticized as outdated, and it could be revised detrimentally if such criticism, accompanied by alarming international policy trends, dominate thinking about special education. Recommendations are made for learning from the history of social policy, including the institutionalization/deinstitutionalization movements.
特殊教育政策展望:过去社会政策的教训
社会政策的初衷可能是好的,但在实现其目的方面可能是无效的。他们可能会被他们的夸张或过于简化的漫画破坏或摧毁,只有一个单一的,狭隘的焦点。漫画可能会导致与精心设计的变体的初衷相反的结果。制度化和去制度化被用作政策失败的完整周期的例子。报告指出,国际上从强制性特殊教育向全纳运动(FIM)转变。如今,FIM对《美国残疾人教育法》(IDEA)的一个方面保持着狭隘的关注,对“最少限制环境”(LRE)要求的解释存在严重的错误。由于相对较少关注美国法律的其他部分,包括免费适当的公共教育(FAPE),个人教育计划(IEP)和连续的替代安置(CAP), FIM可能会成为讽刺漫画;强调物理/空间包容而忽视FAPE和学习,可能会达到与预期相反的效果。并非偶然,IDEA被批评为过时的,如果这种批评伴随着令人担忧的国际政策趋势,主导了对特殊教育的思考,它可能会被有害地修改。建议从社会政策的历史中学习,包括制度化/去制度化运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Exceptionality
Exceptionality EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信