Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:34:38.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects for Special Education: The Decade Ahead

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Bernie Thorley ,
Meredith Martin  and
Joan Jardine
Bernie Thorley
Affiliation:
School of Education, Macquarie University, NSW
Meredith Martin
Affiliation:
School of Education, Macquarie University, NSW
Joan Jardine
Affiliation:
School of Education, Macquarie University, NSW
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The past decade saw a movement towards consensus in special education as personnel increasingly directed their attention to a literal interpretation of special education. At the same time, there was a shift from the old concern with extensive diagnosis and categorization of child-centred, organically based deficits, as the poor returns of this approach became apparent to parents, to teachers and to all other personnel involved with children needing assistance in learning.

In essence, special education is about preventing, remedying, reducing and offsetting the effects of learning problems. Facts about what can or cannot be done to expand learning and learning ability provide the basic propositions from which all conclusions in special education must be drawn. Special educators recognise that learning ability within a domain is, to a large extent, learned and that failures need not be predictable nor inevitable.

Influential in bringing about this new conceptualisation was the effect of the most exciting development in special education in the last two decades: an extensive and rapid growth in the power of instruction. This improvement was particularly apparent to those people who had access to the latest developments, on a worldwide basis, and who had the opportunity to check their magnitude in model projects. Almost overnight it became clear that special education services had to change completely. At the same time the most frustrating and disappointing feature of this era was the fact that so much of the newly created potential for helping special children remained largely unexploited as far as the vast number of “at risk” children was concerned. Consequently, the great expectations that were generated were often comprehensively and persistently thwarted as professionals, schools and systems failed to make the necessary adjustments. “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” This paper looks at prospects both from the point of view of new advances in instructional research, their origins and potential, and also at ways in which we can encourage professionals, schools and systems to adjust to these advances.

Type
Prospect
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 1986 , pp. 9 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bradley, L., & Byrant, P. (1985). Children’s reading problems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Clay, M.M. (1976). Early childhood and cultural diversity in New Zealand. The Reading Teacher, 29, 333–341.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Curriculum-based assessment of progress: Toward long-term and short-term goals. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 69–89.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H., & Wetherby, B. (1984). Application of a functional perspective in receptive language development to early intervention. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 48–57.Google Scholar
Goodman, K.S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Singer, H. & Ruddell, R.B. (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.497–508). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J.V., & Rutherford, W.L. (1984). Effective reading programs: A critical review of outlier studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorm, A.F., & Share, D.L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147.Google Scholar
Juel, C., Griffith, P.L., & Gough, P.B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.Google Scholar
Liberman, L.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8–17.Google Scholar
Lloyd, T. & Goyen, J. (1986). Picking the literacy lock. N.S.W. Journal of Special Education, 6, 37–47.Google Scholar
Miller-Jones, C. (1984). Untangling the correlational relationship between language and reading acquisition. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 50–59.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C.A. (1984). Some reflections of learning and not learning to read. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 28–38.Google Scholar
Report of the Schools Commission Curriculum Development Council (1985).Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In Pearson, P.D. (Ed.) Handbook of reading research, (pp.745–798). New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
Siegel, L.S., & Ryan, E.B. (1984). Reading disability as a language disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 28–33.Google Scholar
Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466–477.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.Google Scholar
Stebbins, L., St. Pierre, R.G., Proper, E.L., Anderson, R.B., & Cowan, T.R. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates.Google Scholar
Strickland, R.G. (1962). The language of elementary school children: Its relation to the language of reading textbooks and the quality of reading of selected children. Bulletin of the School of Education. Indiana University No. 38.Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J. (1976). The need for early education of the intellectually handicapped. Proceedings, The Early Childhood Special Education Conference. Macquarie University, 1976.Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J. (1981). Programming to overcome cognitive deficiencies and the learning of basic school tasks. In McIntyre, G. & Parmenter, T. (Eds.). Preparation for life, (pp.381–388). Sydney: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J. (1984a). A three-component program model for severely handicapped deaf/blind children. International Deaf/Blind Newsletter, December 28–36.Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J. (1984b). Systematizing the use of non-vocal methodologies for teaching reading. Working Papers, Macquarie University School of Education. (pp.1–35).Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J., Hotchkis, G., & Martin, M. (1986). Understanding and controlling learning operations in special education. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Thorley, B.J. & Mills, L. (1986). Special education: A problem of costs and benefits. N.S.W. Journal of Special Education, 6, 5–10.Google Scholar