You are on page 1of 8

BRIEF HISTORY OF SPECIALEDUC

Special education, as its name suggests, is a specialized branch of education. Claiming


lineage to such persons as Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard (1775 - 1838), the physician who
"tamed" the "wild boy of Aveyron," and Anne Sullivan Macy (1866 - 1936), the teacher
who "worked miracles" with Helen Keller, special educators teach those students who
have physical, cognitive, language, learning, sensory, and/or emotional abilities that
deviate from those of the general population. Special educators provide instruction
specifically tailored to meet individualized needs, making education available to students
who otherwise would have limited access to education. In 2001, special education in the
United States was serving over five million students.

Although federally mandated special education is relatively new in the United States,
students with disabilities have been present in every era and in every society. Historical
records have consistently documented the most severe disabilities - those that transcend
task and setting. Itard's description of the wild boy of Aveyron documents a variety of
behaviors consistent with both mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Nineteenth-
century reports of deviant behavior describe conditions that could easily be interpreted as
severe mental retardation, autism, or schizophrenia. Milder forms of disability became
apparent only after the advent of universal public education. When literacy became a goal
for all children, teachers began observing disabilities specific to task and setting - that is,
less severe disabilities. After decades of research and legislation, special education now
provides services to students with varying degrees and forms of disabilities, including
mental retardation, emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, speech-language
(communication) disabilities, impaired hearing and deafness, low vision and blindness,
autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, and severe and multiple
disabilities.

Development of the Field of Special Education

At its inception in the early nineteenth century, leaders of social change set out to cure
many ills of society. Physicians and clergy, including Itard, Edouard O. Seguin (1812 -
1880), Samuel Gridley Howe (1801 - 1876), and Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet (1787 -
1851), wanted to ameliorate the neglectful, often abusive treatment of individuals with
disabilities. A rich literature describes the treatment provided to individuals with
disabilities in the 1800s: They were often confined in jails and almshouses without decent
food, clothing, personal hygiene, and exercise. During much of the nineteenth century,
and early in the twentieth, professionals believed individuals with disabilities were best
treated in residential facilities in rural environments. Advocates of these institutions
argued that environmental conditions such as urban poverty and vices induced behavioral
problems. Reformers such as Dorothea Dix (1802 - 1887) prevailed upon state
governments to provide funds for bigger and more specialized institutions. These
facilities focused more on a particular disability, such as mental retardation, then known
as "feeble-mindedness" or "idiocy"; mental illness, then labeled "insanity" or "madness";
sensory impairment such as deafness or blindness; and behavioral disorders such as
criminality and juvenile delinquency. Children who were judged to be delinquent or
aggressive, but not insane, were sent to houses ofrefuge or reform schools, whereas
children and adults judged to be "mad" were admitted to psychiatric hospitals. Dix and
her followers believed that institutionalization of individuals with disabilities would end
their abuse (confinement without treatment in jails and poorhouses) and provide effective
treatment. Moral treatment was the dominant approach of the early nineteenth century in
psychiatric hospitals, the aim being cure. Moral treatment employed methods analogous
to today's occupational therapy, systematic instruction, and positive reinforcement.
Evidence suggests this approach was humane and effective in some cases, but the
treatment was generally abandoned by the late nineteenth century, due largely to the
failure of moral therapists to train others in their techniques and the rise of the belief that
mental illness was always a result of brain disease.

By the end of the nineteenth century, pessimism about cure and emphasis on
physiological causes led to a change in orientation that would later bring about the
"warehouse-like" institutions that have become a symbol for abuse and neglect of
society's most vulnerable citizens. The practice of moral treatment was replaced by the
belief that most disabilities were incurable. This led to keeping individuals with
disabilities ininstitutions both for their own protection and for the betterment of society.
Although the transformation took many years, by the end of the nineteenth century the
size of institutions had increased so dramatically that the goal of rehabilitation was no
longer possible. Institutions became instruments for permanent segregation. Many special
education professionals became critics of institutions. Howe, one of the first to argue for
in stitutions for people with disabilities, began advocating placing out residents into
families. Unfortunately this practice became a logistical and pragmatic problem before it
could become a viable alternative to institutionalization.

At the close of the nineteenth century, state governments established juvenile courts and
social welfare programs, including foster homes, for children and adolescents. The child
study movement became prominent in the early twentieth century. Using the approach
pioneered by G. Stanley Hall (1844 - 1924; considered the founder of child psychology),
researchers attempted to study child development scientifically in relation to education
and in so doing established a place for psychology within public schools. In 1931, the
Bradley Home, the first psychiatric hospital for children in the United States, was
established in East Providence, Rhode Island. The treatment offered in this hospital, as
well as most of the other hospitals of the early twentieth century, was psychodynamic.
Psychodynamic ideas fanned interest in the diagnosis and classification of disabili ties. In
1951 the first institution for research on exceptional children opened at the University of
Illinois and began what was to become the newest focus of the field of special education:
the slow learner and, eventually, what we know today as learning disability.

The Development of Special Education in Institutions and Schools

Although Itard failed to normalize Victor, the wild boy of Averyon, he did produce
dramatic changes in Victor's behavior through education. Modern special education
practices can be traced to Itard, and his work marks the beginning of widespread attempts
to instruct students with disabilities. In 1817 the first special education school in the
United States, the American Asylum for the Education and Instruction of the Deaf and
Dumb (now called the American School for the Deaf), was established in Hartford,
Connecticut, by Gallaudet. By the middle of the nineteenth century, special educational
programs were being provided in many asylums. Education was a prominent part of
moral therapy. By the close of the nineteenth century, special classes within regular
public schools had been launched in major cities. These special classes were initially
established for immigrant students who were not proficient in English and students who
had mild mental retardation or behavioral disorders. Descriptions of these children
included terms such as steamer children, backward, truant, and incorrigible. Procedures
for identifying "defectives" were included in the World's Fair of 1904. By the 1920s
special classes for students judged unsuitable for regular classes had become common in
major cities.

In 1840 Rhode Island passed a law mandating compulsory education for children, but not
all states had compulsory education until 1918. With compulsory schooling and the
swelling tide of anti-institution sentiment in the twentieth century, many children with
disabilities were moved out of institutional settings and into public schools. However, by
the mid-twentieth century children with disabilities were still often excluded from public
schools and kept at home if not institutionalized. In order to respond to the new
population of students with special needs entering schools, school officials created still
more special classes in public schools.

The number of special classes and complementary support services (assistance given to
teachers in managing behavior and learning problems) increased dramatically after World
War II. During the early 1900s there was also an increased attention to mental health and
a consequent interest in establishing child guidance clinics. By 1930 child guidance
clinics and counseling services were relatively common features of major cities, and by
1950 special education had become an identifiable part of urban public education in
nearly every school district. By 1960 special educators were instructing their students in a
continuum of settings that included hospital schools for those with the most severe
disabilities, specialized day schools for students with severe disabilities who were able to
live at home, and special classes in regular public schools for students whose disabilities
could be managed in small groups. During this period special educators also began to
take on the role of consultant, assisting other teachers in instructing students with
disabilities. Thus, by 1970 the field of special education was offering a variety of
educational placements to students with varying disabilities and needs; however, public
schools were not yet required to educate all students regardless of their disabilities.

During the middle decades of the twentieth century, instruction of children with
disabilities often was based on process training - which involves attempts to improve
children's academic performance by teaching them cognitive or motor processes, such as
perceptualmotor skills, visual memory, auditory memory, or auditory-vocal processing.
These are ancient ideas that found twentieth-century proponents. Process training
enthusiasts taught children various perceptual skills (e.g., identifying different sounds or
objects by touch) or perceptual motor skills (e.g., balancing) with the notion that fluency
in these skills would generalize to reading, writing, arithmetic, and other basic academic
tasks. After many years of research, however, such training was shown not to be effective
in improving academic skills. Many of these same ideas were recycled in the late
twentieth century as learning styles, multiple intelligences, and other notions that the
underlying process of learning varies with gender, ethnicity, or other physiological
differences. None of these theories has found much support in reliable research, although
direct instruction, mnemonic (memory) devices, and a few other instructional strategies
have been supported reliably by research.

The History of Legislation in Special Education

Although many contend that special education was born with the passage of the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in 1975, it is clear that special
educators were beginning to respond to the needs of children with disabilities in public
schools nearly a century earlier. It is also clear that EAHCA did not spring from a
vacuum. This landmark law naturally evolved from events in both special education and
the larger society and came about in large part due to the work of grass roots
organizations composed of both parents and professionals. These groups dated back to
the 1870s, when the American Association of Instructors of the Blind and the American
Association on Mental Deficiency (the latter is now the American Association on Mental
Retardation) were formed. In 1922 the Council for Exceptional Children, now the major
professional organization of special educators, was organized. In the 1930s and 1940s
parent groups began to band together on a national level. These groups worked to make
changes in their own communities and, consequently, set the stage for changes on a
national level. Two of the most influential parent advocacy groups were the National
Association for Retarded Citizens (now ARC/USA), organized in 1950, and the
Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, organized in 1963.

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, advocacy groups were securing local
ordinances that would protect and serve individuals with disabilities in their communities.
For example, in 1930, in Peoria, Illinois, the first white cane ordinance gave individuals
with blindness the right-of-way when crossing the street. By mid-century all states had
legislation providing for education of students with disabilities. However, legislation was
still noncompulsory. In the late 1950s federal money was allocated for educating children
with disabilities and for the training of special educators. Thus the federal government
became formally involved in research and in training special education professionals, but
limited its involvement to these functions until the 1970s. In 1971, this support was
reinforced and extended to the state level when the Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Children (PARC) filed a class action suit against their Commonwealth. This
suit, resolved by consent agreement, specified that all children age six through twenty-
one were to be provided free public education in the least restrictive alternative (LRA,
which would later become the least restrictive environment [LRE] clause in EAHCA). In
1973 the Rehabilitation Act prohibited discriminatory practices in programs receiving
federal financial assistance but imposed no affirmative obligations with respect to special
education.
In 1975 the legal action begun under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations resulted
in EAHCA, which was signed into law by President Gerald Ford. EAHCA reached full
implementation in 1977 and required school districts to provide free and appropriate
education to all of their students with disabilities. In return for federal funding, each state
was to ensure that students with disabilities received non-discriminatory testing,
evaluation, and placement; the right to due process; education in the least restrictive
environment; and a free and appropriate education. The centerpiece of this public law
(known since 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA) was, and
is, a free appropriate public education (FAPE). To ensure FAPE, the law mandated that
each student receiving special education receive an Individualized Education Program
(IEP). Under EAHCA, students with identified disabilities were to receive FAPE and an
IEP that included relevant instructional goals and objectives, specifications as to length of
school year, determination of the most appropriate educational placement, and
descriptions of criteria to be used in evaluation and measurement. The IEP was designed
to ensure that all students with disabilities received educational programs specific to their
"unique" needs. Thus, the education of students with disabilities became federally
controlled. In the 1982 case of Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central
School District v. Rowley, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the level of services to be
afforded students with special needs and ruled that special education services need only
provide some "educational benefit" to students - public schools were not required to
maximize the educational progress of students with disabilities. In so doing the Supreme
Court further defined what was meant by a free and appropriate education. In 1990
EAHCA was amended to include a change to person-first language, replacing the term
handicapped student with student with disabilities. The 1990 amendments also added
new classification categories for students with autism and traumatic brain injury and
transition plans within IEPs for students age fourteen or older. In 1997, IDEA was
reauthorized under President Clinton and amended to require the inclusion of students
with disabilities in statewide and districtwide assessments, measurable IEP goals and
objectives, and functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans for
students with emotional or behavioral needs. Because IDEA is amended and reauthorized
every few years, it is impossible to predict the future of this law. It is possible that it will
be repealed or altered dramatically by a future Congress. The special education story,
both past and future, can be written in many different ways.

Trends in Special Education

Researchers have conceptualized the history of special education in stages that highlight
the various trends that the field has experienced. Although some of these
conceptualizations focus on changes involving instructional interventions for students
with disabilities, others focus on the place of interventions. The focus on placement
reflects the controversy in which the field of special education has found itself throughout
history. Samuel G. Howe was one of the first to assert - in the nineteenth century - that
instructional settings had inherent qualities that alone insured effective interventions.
Belief in the essential curative powers of place spurred the late nineteenth century
crusade for bigger and better institutions, as well as the mid-twentieth-century movement
for deinstitutionalization. Exclusive focus on the importance of place distracted many
professionals and prevented them from recognizing that dramatic changes in philosophy
were accompanying the movement for deinstitutionalization. In the late nineteenth
century, social Darwinism replaced environmentalism as the primary causal explanation
for those individuals with abilities who deviated from those of the general population,
opening the door to the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century, and leading to
the segregation and sterilization of individuals with mental retardation. At the beginning
of the twentieth century, the debate had suddenly shifted from whether the disadvantaged
should be helped to where these individuals should be served. As the institutionalization
versus deinstitutionalization debate raged, many individuals were given custodial
treatment, which is contrary to the mission of special education.

Almost a century after the placement debate began, special educators still focused on the
importance of place. Many were calling upon the field to create not one perfect setting for
the delivery of services, but a continuum of placement options that would address the
needs of all students with disabilities. The civil rights movement had reconceptualized
special education as a case of access of minorities to the educational privileges of the
majority, and the least restrictive environment clause of EAHCA/IDEA prompted
advocates for people with disabilities to call for mainstreaming - the return of students
with disabilities to the regular classroom whenever and wherever possible. In the 1980s
the Regular Education Initiative (REI) was an attempt to return responsibility for the
education of students with disabilities to neighborhood schools and regular classroom
teachers. In the 1990s the full inclusion movement called for educating all students with
disabilities in the regular classroom with a single, unified and responsive education
system. Advocates for full inclusion, following in the footsteps of Howe, argued for
appropriate instruction in a single, ubiquitous place, contrary to the mandate of IDEA.

Controversial Issues in Special Education

Special education has been the target of criticism throughout history. Some of the
criticism has been justified, some unjustified. Some criticisms brought to light ineffective
practices, such as the inefficacy and inhumanity of relegating all persons with disabilities
to institutions. Other criticisms were distractions with disastrous repercussions, such as
the singular focus on the importance of place while ignoring other inappropriate
practices. The beginning of the twenty-first century found new criticisms being launched
at special education. Some argue that the use of diagnostic labels is potentially
stigmatizing to students, others that minority students are overrepresented in some
disability categories, and still others that education of students with disabilities in special
classes and schools, even pulling students out for instruction in resource classes, is akin
to race-based segregation. Some of these criticisms may expose ineffective practices,
others may only distract educators from the effort of finding and implementing effective
instructional practices. Professionals must develop the ability to learn from history and
differentiate between unimportant criticisms and those with merit.

One valid criticism repeatedly launched against special education involves the
implementation of ineffective educational interventions. Although great concern about
the where of instruction was expressed in the 1980s and 1990s, little attention was given
to the what of instruction. Throughout the twentieth century the field of special education
repeatedly adopted instructional strategies of questionable efficacy - interventions that
have little to no empirical basis. Additionally, special educators have adopted, with
"bandwagon" fervor, many practices that have been proven ineffective and have thereby
repeated the mistakes of history. If special education is to progress, professionals will
need to address and remedy the instructional practices used with students with
disabilities.

Special education has also been validly criticized for the way in which students with
disabilities are identified. In the early nineteenth century, physicians and educators had
difficulty making reliable distinctions between different disability categories. In fact, the
categories of mental retardation and behavioral disorders are inseparably intertwined.
Many of the disability categories overlap to the extent that it is hard to differentiate one
from the other. Additionally, some of the categories - learning disabilities and behavioral
disorders, for example - are defined by the exclusion of other contributing disabilities.
Thus, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, much work remains on the
identification of students with disabilities.

Perhaps the largest, most pervasive issue in special education is its relationship to general
education. The relationship of special to general education has been controversial since
the beginning of universal public schooling. However, in the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries, the question of whether special education should retain a separate
identity or be fused with general education such that it has no separate identity (e.g.,
budget, personnel) was made prominent by proponents of a radical restructuring of
special education. Proponents of radical restructuring and fusion argue that such
integration is necessary to provide appropriate education for all students regardless of
their disabilities and without stigma or discrimination. In their view, special education
suffers primarily from structural problems, and the integration of two separate systems
will result in a flexible, supple, responsive single system that will meet the needs of all
students without "separating out" any. All teachers, according to this line of thinking,
should be prepared to teach all students, including those with special needs.

Opponents of radical restructuring argue that special education's problems are primarily
the lack of implementation of best practices, not structural. Moreover, they suggest,
special education will not survive to serve the special needs of exceptional students if it
loses its identity, including special budget allocations and personnel preparation. It is not
feasible nor is it desirable, they contend, to prepare all teachers to teach all children;
special training is required to teach students who are educationally exceptional.
Arguments about the structure of education (special and general), who (if anyone) should
receive special treatment, how they should be taught, and where special services should
be provided are perpetual issues in special education. These issues will likely continue to
be debated throughout the twenty-first century.

In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, another issue became the basis for
conceptual or theoretical bases for special education practices. Postmodern and
antiscientific philosophies have been put forward in both general and special education.
These ideas have been challenged by others who have noted the importance of the
scientific method in discriminating among ideas and assertions. Likely, postmodern ideas
and attempts to apply them to or refute them will be perpetual.

More than two hundred years after Itard began his work on the education of the wild boy
of Aveyron, special educators are being asked to make decisions concerning such issues
as placement and delivery of services. The inclusion debate, although important, has the
potential to distract the field of special education away from issues of greater import -
issues such as the efficacy of intervention and the accurate identification of students with
disabilities. If special educators are to avoid the mistakes of the past, they will need to
make future decisions based upon reliable data, evaluating the efficacy of differing
options. Since the inception of what is now known as IDEA, significant progress has
been made in applying scientific research to the problems of special education. In the
twenty-first century, special education need not remain a field of good intentions, but can
fully employ the scientific child-study techniques begun in the late eighteenth century to
provide free and appropriate educations to all children with disabilities.