Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons from Social Policies Past

Autor/inn/en	Kauffman, James M.; Ahrbeck, Bernd; Anastasiou, Dimitris; Badar, Jeanmarie; Felder, Marion; Hallenbeck, Betty A.
Titel	Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons from Social Policies Past
Quelle	In: Exceptionality, 29 (2021) 1, S.16-28 (13 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0936-2835
DOI	10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326
Schlagwörter	Special Education; Educational Policy; Equal Education; Students with Disabilities; Federal Legislation; Educational Legislation; Mainstreaming; Individualized Education Programs; Inclusion; Foreign Countries; United States; Germany + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Politics of education; Bildungspolitik; Student; Students; Disability; Disabilities; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Behinderung; Bundesrecht; Bildungsrecht; Schulgesetz; Individualized education program; Individualisierendes Lernen; Inklusion; Ausland; USA; Deutschland
Abstract	Social policies can be well-intentioned but ineffective in achieving what is intended. They can be undermined or destroyed by their exaggerated or oversimplified caricatures with a single, narrow focus. Caricatures may result in the opposite of the original intent of more carefully crafted variants. Institutionalization and deinstitutionalization are used as examples of a full cycle of policy failure. The shift from "mandatory" special education to the "full" inclusion movement (FIM) internationally is noted. Nowadays, the FIM maintains a narrow focus on one aspect of the U. S. "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" (IDEA), with a deeply erroneous interpretation of the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement. In giving comparatively little attention to other parts of the U. S. law, including free appropriate public education (FAPE), the individual education plan (IEP), and a continuum of alternative placements (CAP), the FIM may become a caricature; emphasizing physical/spatial inclusion to the neglect of FAPE and learning, it may achieve the opposite of what was intended. Not accidentally, IDEA has been criticized as outdated, and it could be revised detrimentally if such criticism, accompanied by alarming international policy trends, dominate thinking about special education. Recommendations are made for learning from the history of social policy, including the institutionalization/deinstitutionalization movements. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01