Looking into Special Education

A synthesis of key themes and concepts

Michael Farrell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317932659
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Contemporary and stimulating, Looking into Special Education provides an engaging overview of the key areas of special education, with each chapter providing valuable insight into the nature and practice of special education today. Aiding understanding and acting as a framework for further study, thought and practice, this innovative new book concerns a wide range of disabilities and disorders and is international in scope.

Chapters discuss:

• The historical dimensions of special education
• How to engage with the structural frameworks (legal and definitional issues) of special education today
• The philosophical foundations of special education, including positivism
• Criticisms of special education and a consideration of future trends
• The fundamentals of evidence-based practice and how professional judgement is used
• The benefits of multi-professional collaboration
• Organisational issues of mainstreaming and special schooling.

Including further reading material and 'concluding thinking points' at the end of each thought-provoking chapter, Looking into Special Education will be of particular use to professionals and students of special education and related fields looking to enrich their understanding and practice.

1

LOOKING BACK

An historical dimension

Introduction

Few subjects elicit such powerful and contradictory views as history. Admiration for historians illuminates Oscar Wilde's observation that ‘Any fool can make history, but it takes a genius to write it’. Contempt overshadows the German philosopher Schopenhauer's jaundiced view that ‘Clio, the Muse of history, is as thoroughly infected with lies as a street whore with syphilis’.

Given such diverse evaluations, it seems politic before looking back to the past of special education, to consider history more generally. I propose therefore to briefly explore the nature of history and its methods, relationships between chronology and history, the question of purpose in history, the relative influences of objectivity and subjectivity, and the relationship between historiography and history.

Next, the chapter examines the relationships between history and special education. I look at chronology and special education and at possible trends and historical legacies in contemporary special education. The chapter considers the issue of limited historical perspectives that can distort special educational history. I look at people, places and issues that have been part of the history of special education and how these might influence emphases in special education history. Finally, the chapter casts a view over historical changes in the language used to refer to disabilities and disorders.

History and its methods

Given that evaluations of history from Schopenhauer to Wilde are polarised, it may come as no surprise to find that definitions of history are capacious. ‘History,’ states Burrow (2009), ‘even if we allow it to be in its broadest sense to be a single kind of activity, is nonetheless a very diverse one’ (ibid., p. xiii). It may concern ‘Plagues, invasions, emigrations; the foundation, working and development of constitutional arrangements and political systems; wars … revolutions, changes in religion and culture … the formation of various kinds of collective identity … providential history …’ (ibid.). The style of history is almost as varied as its capacious content. Some histories are ‘virtually pure narrative’ while others are ‘virtually pure, almost atemporal, analyses’ (ibid.).

Despite this diversity of content and approach, centrally, history is a branch of knowledge that systematically examines evidence of the past. It seeks to record facts such as events (often chronologically) and to analyse, interpret, explain or comment on them. The Greek origin, ιστορια (historia) as used by the historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC) translates as ‘an account of one's enquiries’. Among the different foci or genres of history is economic, social, intellectual, political, military and cultural history. Theories informing approaches to history include structuralist, neo-Marxist and feminist versions.

Neighbouring disciplines that influence the methodology of history include philology (study of the authenticity of written records), economics, sociology and anthropology. Cliometrics uses mathematical methods including statistics to interpret past data. Also influential are geography, palaeography (the study of writings of the past), archaeology and psychology. More recent candidates for leaving their fingerprints on historical method might be literary criticism and linguistic analysis (Evans, 2000, pp. 8–9, 21, 66).

While disciplines influencing methodology are varied, the approaches of historians themselves are diverse and vigorously debated. Isaiah Berlin (1954) noted that in history there are many more varieties of method and procedures ‘than is usually provided for in textbooks on logic or scientific method’ (ibid., p. 5).

Historians present empirical evidence, put forward causal arguments and hypotheses, and offer plausible explanations of events and situations. They question the material that is being examined. It may be a primary source, such as a diary, letters or artefacts, or it may be a secondary source for example another historian's writings drawing on a range of primary material. Consider the example of written sources. It will be of interest who wrote the material and this will raise various questions. What was the role of that individual in society? What was their relation to the events described? What might have been their motives? Evidence of authenticity and bias will be considered. The intended audience for the material will be taken into account. If the works of a historian is being consulted, their chosen orientation (e.g. Marxist) will be recognised.

There is a debate about the extent to which history leans towards being more scientific or more artistic in its methods. While a historian may be able to draw generalisations from material, the subject is not scientific in the sense that it uses experiment and has predictive laws. However, such a stipulation for scientific endeavour is perhaps over-strict, excluding, if it is applied, the science of astronomy, which does not incorporate experiment. History may be seen as a science in the weak sense. It can also be an art form to the extent that it can be expressed in language that has great literary merit and is recognised as both history and literature (or even ‘Literature’). Perhaps it is most fruitful to regard history as having elements of both science and art. There is also an argument for history having much in common with craft learning and skill development. For White (1995, p. 243) history is less a science than a ‘craft like discipline’ tending to be governed by ‘convention and custom rather than by methodology and theory’ (ibid.).

Chronology and history

Chronology may be likened to and contrasted to history. In a chronology, a timeline of events is presented going from more distant in time to the more recent. Basic information is provided: a place, a date, an event. Even in this a chronicler makes important decisions about what to include or exclude, implying judgements about what is deemed important. Such selection is inevitable otherwise chronologies would become unmanageable. But selection constitutes some form of judgement about what is important or representative. In this way, historians use chronology as a tool.

When considering any aspect of the past, a catalogue of historical facts would be endless and indigestible. In presenting a history, the historian goes beyond the selection of apparent historical facts and moves into their interpretation. As facts are considered and prioritised, digested and ordered, the historian comes to see what is taken to be a theme or several themes in the material. The theme is considered to emerge from the material itself. This would enable someone else revisiting the original sources to see an argument for the interpretation their predecessor is taking, even if they disagree with it. History emerges from the interaction between the historian and the material.

If the historian comes to the facts with a pre-existing, rigid inclination or perspective, there is the risk of distorting the evidence. One might see only what one expects and overlook or play down evidence that may point in another direction. Conversely, if one never gets to the point where a thread of interpretation seems justified, the material remains disordered. History therefore represents a tension between over-organising prejudgement and chaotic fragmentation.

Unlike chronology, history does not always have to treat events in a chronological way, although it may do so. History may be presented in reverse chronological order by beginning in the present or at a particular time and working back to earlier periods. The historian may present a series of tableaus or episodes all occurring over the same period, perhaps to build up a broader picture and support a hypothesis.

Questions of purpose

Historians have sometimes been guided consciously or perhaps unconsciously by underlying assumptions of the period in which they lived. In Europe in the medieval period and early modern times, historians may have seen the role of history as setting down the working out of God's purposes for the world. For rationalist historians of the Enlightenment, historical explanation tended to rest on human forces supplemented by moral illustration. In the Romantic era, historians saw their purpose as discovering things about the past to be cherished and preserved so they could act as a foundation for a true understanding and appreciation of current institutions of state and society (Evans, 2000, pp. 15–16).

A key figure in the development of history as a distinctive subject, the German historian Leopold von Ranke saw the purpose of history as showing the essential being of the past. He attempted to be impartial in the sense of not judging the past by the moral and other standards of the present. Ranke used the techniques of philologists to try to establish the authenticity and consistency of texts.

This led to a view of history as essentially a scientific enterprise, seeking incontrovertible facts and demonstrating causal links. However, this scientific view of history came to be questioned. It was recognised that, given the huge masses of evidence available to the historian, a single unchallengeable interpretation was unlikely. Different interpretations of the same evidence were likely to persist. It came to be increasingly recognised that it was important to bring feelings and imagination to bear when interpreting historical material (in fact, this was not at odds with Ranke's original principles). The view that history is essentially scientific has reasserted itself from time to time and debate about the respective extent to which history draws on scientific methods and subjective approaches continues.

That history is considered to have a fundamental purpose is suggested by the term ‘historicism’, the view that history is determined by fixed laws or cyclic patterns. Popper, in criticising ‘historicism’ defines it as an approach to the social sciences that assumes their primary aim is ‘historical prediction’ and that this aim is ‘attainable by discovering the ‘rhythms’ or the ‘patterns’, the ‘laws’ or the ‘trends’ that underlie the evolution of history’ (Popper, 1986, p. 3).

A historicist view suggests history is influenced, even determined, by processes outside human control. Events are influenced not so much by people as by historical conditions. A strong reading of Marx's works suggests such a standpoint. Anyone holding such a perspective will tend to seek the supposed laws and present history as an explication of them. Others may seek patterns to try to explain events but fall short of endorsing so strong a connection as could be described as a law. Yet others may reject historicism in this sense. They may hold that the past can be assessed without the need to explain or follow fixed laws. From this standpoint, there is no assumption that there is a ‘purpose’ in history in the way discussed above, and history may be seen as an end in itself.

Objectivity and subjectivity

The continuing discussion about the relative contributions of predominantly scientific or subjective influences in history can be recognised in ancient comparisons. They are evident as far back as Herodotus' The Histories and Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War. Some have argued that history seeks objective truth about the recorded past (Elton, 1967). Others have seen history as a relativist product of its time, influenced by the motives and characteristics of the historian who writes it (Carr, 1961). Different versions of the objective-relative debate in history have emerged. Some historians have argued for a scientific approach to history while others have pointed to the speculative nature of interpretation. Certain scholars have allocated different roles to various aspects of the historian's work. Research may be seen as mainly scientific while interpretation may be regarded as mainly speculative. Others do not recognise such a neat dividing line between fact and interpretation. The view of what constitutes a historical fact and its selection is itself seen as an exercise in interpretation.

More recently, postmodern criticism has influenced the debate about the nature of history. Focusing on the language of history, postmodern criticisms have questioned some of the foundational thinking of historians. Evans (2000) seeks to sift out some of the less well-informed postmodern criticisms and to respond to the challenge of others. He criticises postmodernism's ‘legitimation of subjectivity in the historian's work’. This, he wryly observes, ‘encourages historians to intrude into the text to such a degree that in some cases their presence all but obliterates the historical subject’ (ibid., p. 200). Yet the contributions of subjective and interpretative elements in history as well as the importance of seeking to establish the validity of evidence are widely accepted.

Historiography

PAUSE FOR REFLECTION

Visit the following site: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCKW26Up9Dc. This is an interview with Professor Alan Ford of Nottingham University, United Kingdom, who discusses the nature and application of historiography.

Might the history of history be challenged by the same difficulties that history itself faces?

How might the historiographer deal with this?

What are the implications for any history or review of histories of special education? History can be further understood with reference to historiography, which the chapter has inevitably already touched on in referring to purpose and method in history. The term historiography refers to a body of historical work on a specified topic – for example, the ‘historiography of Buddhism’ or the ‘historiography of Germany’. It also concerns the study of history as an academic pursuit: the principles, theories and methods of historical research and writing. Clearly, the two understandings of the term are related.

One may speak, for example, of ‘Christian historiography’ developing a view of world history in which God intervened in human affairs. The principles, theories and methods of such a worldview are different from those of, say, a ‘modern European historiography’ where a secular position is evident.

Historiography has been defined as the ‘history of historical writing’ (Furay and Salevouris, 2000, p. 223). It is the ‘study of the way history has been written’. This does not imply the study of past events ‘directly’ but involves looking at the way those events have been interpreted differently in the writings of different historians (ibid.). It is broa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the author
• Preface
• Chapter summaries
• Introduction
• 1 Looking back: an historical dimension
• 2 Looking structurally: legal and definitional frameworks
• 3 Looking philosophically: action, challenging orthodoxy and changing attitudes
• 4 Looking critically: negative views of special education and responses
• 5 Looking evidentially: evidence-based practice and professional judgement
• 6 Looking collectively: multiprofessional collaboration
• 7 Looking organisationally: mainstreaming and special education
• Conclusion
• References
• Index