Counterpoint: Special Education—Ineffective? Immoral?

Abstract

Full inclusionists appear to be using the old left-jab-right-hook combination to bring education to the canvas. Their jab is the charge that education isn't effective; their hook is the assertion that separate programming is inherently unequal and immoral. Both claims have been taken at face value by too many for too long. Special Education Doesn't Work? Following is but a sampling of the negative evaluations of education that abound in the professional literature. What is known about the education of students labeled as handicapped? First, separate education does not work (Gartner & Lipsky, 1989, p. 26). [Special education] pulls students from general education classrooms and places them in small, segregated classes, in which they ... are given watered-down curriculum, and receive less rather than more instructional time (Wang & Walberg, 1988, p. 131). Even when all measures are taken to coordinate the pullout program with the work of the regular class, students do not benefit Biklen & Zollers, 1986, p. 581). These sweeping assertions may make good copy, but they don't hold water. Special education have been effective for some students-and persuasive of this has been around for more than a decade. Carlberg and Kavale (1980), for example, undertook a meta-analysis of 50 independent studies of (including resource rooms) versus regular classes. They concluded that special were ... significantly inferior to regular class placement for students with below average IQs, and significantly superior to regular class for behaviorally disordered, and disabled (p. 295). Sindelar and Deno (1978) conducted a narrative review of 17 studies to determine the effectiveness of resource rooms. They used more stringent selection criteria than did Carlberg and Kavale, reviewing only investigations with relevant comparison groups. Nevertheless, their findings are consonant with those of Carlberg and Kavale: Resource rooms were more effective than regular classrooms in improving the academic achievement of students with disabilities or emotional and behavioral disturbances. By contrast, there were no reliable differences between resource and mainstream with respect to the academic improvement of children with mild mental retardation. However, as Sindelar and Deno noted, one clear trend has begun to emerge: The most carefully designed studies have . . . obtained the most affirmative results [for education programs! (p. 24). Madden and Slavin (1983) performed perhaps the most systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the effects of placing mildly academically handicapped (MAH) students (i.e., those labeled learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and educable mentally retarded) in full-time education classes, resource rooms, and full-time regular classes. Their findings are generally in accord with those of the two reviews just described. Regarding the efficacy of full-time for MAH pupils, Madden and Slavin wrote, Students closest in achievement level to the regular students benefit most from assignment to the regular class, whereas students with much more serious problems gain most in classes (p. 530). However, evidence concerning the achievement effects of part-time resource is less clear. Results probably depend to a large extent on the quality of the resource programs (p. 530). Thus, three independent reviews come to the same conclusion: Special and resource rooms contribute more to the academic achievement of some types of special-needs students than do regular classrooms. Special education can and do work in certain places, make no mistake. It is equally clear, however, that education does not work everywhere. …