Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:32:41.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Striving for Excellence in Special Education Policy in New Zealand and Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Keri Wilton
Keri Wilton*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout the world, special education has always been substantially concerned with “striving for excellence”, in the sense that what has been sought and striven for by special educators are specific programs and policies which effectively meet the special educational needs of particular children and adults who are not adequately served by the programs and policies generally available. The term “striving” has two related meanings and both seem apt in the present context. First, an examination of the history of special education reveals that appropriate special education policies and programs are seldom, if ever, achieved unless those seeking them on behalf of exceptional learners have the commitment, determination, and fortitude to strive - in the sense of “fight” - often against very considerable opposition, to achieve what is required. The second meaning of “strive” - to make a great and tenacious effort, also epitomizes the work of those who have sought and still seek appropriate special educational programs and policies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , January 1990 , pp. 8 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1990

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

Brady, J., Wilton, K.M. (1989). Teachers’ and principals’ attitudes to mainstreaming of handicapped children in New Zealand primary schools (Study in progress, University of Auckland).Google Scholar
Gottlieb, J. (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115–126.Google Scholar
Gresham, F.M. (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 422–433.Google Scholar
Leinhardt, G., & Pallay, A. (1982). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven? Review of Educational Research, 52, 557–578.Google Scholar
Macmillan, D.L., Jones, R.L., & Aloia, G.F. (1974). The mentally retarded label: A theoretical analysis and review of research. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 241–261.Google Scholar
Macmillan, D.L., Keogh, B.K., & Jones, R.L. (1986). Special educational research on mildly handicapped learners. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.), pp. 686–724. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Madden, N.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monsen, J., Townsend, M.A.R., & Wilton, K.M. (1989). Classroom climate and teachers’ attitudes to mainstreaming (Study in progress, University of Auckland).Google Scholar
Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human management implications. In Kugel, R. & Wolfensberger, W. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 179–188). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar