Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Special Education (Taking Sides Series) Book

Kay S. Hymowitz, a regular contributing editor to The City Journal (published by The Manhattan Institute), cites inclusive educational programming for students with disabilities and the legal limitations of IDEA97 as primary contributors to the destruction of effective discipline in today's schools. James A. Taylor and Richard A. Baker, Jr., president and vice-president of Edleaders.com, respectively, believe that school administrators who design and implement an effective disciplinary code that applies to all students, including those with disabilities, can create a more orderly environment for everyone.

The National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity and empowerment for all individuals with disabilities, found that all 50 U.S. states are out of compliance with special education law, a condition that the council argues must be remedied by increased federal attention. Frederick M. Hess, an assistant professor of education and government, and Frederick J. Brigham, an assistant professor of education, both at the University of Virginia, maintain that increased federal monitoring will only deepen the separation between general and special education, drawing resources away from true educational excellence for all.

U.S. Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority of the Court, affirms the "bright line test," establishing that shcool districts are required by IDEA to provide one-on-one nursing services and any other health-related services that can be delivered by individuals other than a licensed physician. U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, representing the dissenting minority opinion, asserts that continuous one-on-one nursing services for disabled children are indeed medical and, as such, beyond the scope of congressional intent in IDEA. He concludes that such services are not the responsibility of special education programs within school districts.

Dorothy Kerzner Lipsky, director of the National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion at the City University of New York, and professor of educational psychology Alan Gartner emphasize that IDEA97 supports inclusion as the best way to educate students with disabilities and discuss the ingredients that contribute to successful inclusionary practices. Daniel P. Hallahan, a professor of education at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, fears that students with disabilities will lose access to necessary, specially designed instruction in the inclusionary rush to return them to the very classrooms in which they experienced failure.

Susan Shapiro-Barnard and her colleagues in the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire affirm the positive outcomes of full inclusion at the high school level for students with significant cognitive disabilites. Public school administrators Gary M. Chesley and Paul D. Calaluce, Jr., express their concern that full inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities does not provide appropriate preparation for successful life following school.

Harlan Lane, a faculty member at Northeastern University, Robert Hoffmeister, director of the Deaf Studies Program at Boston University; and Ben Bahan, a deaf scholar in American Sign Language linguistics, value residential schools as rich cultural resources that enable Deaf children to participate fully in the educational experience. Tom Bertling, who acquired a severe hearing loss at age 5 and attended a residential school for the deaf after third grade, favors the use of sign language in social situations but views residential schools as segregated enclaves designed to preserve the Deaf culture rather than to develop adults who can contribute fully to society.

Rex Knowles, a retired college professor, and Trudy Knowles, an assistant professor of elementary education, argue that federal mandates for all students to master the same curriculum fail to consider students' individual differences and needs. Jerry Jesness, a special education teacher, stresses that students who complete school without learning the basics will be ill-equipped to succeed as adults and that any program that avoids teaching these essentials fails to address the long-term needs of students.

Michael F. Giangreco, a research associate professor specializing in inclusive education, and his colleagues assert that untrained teacher assistants spend too much time closely attached to individual students, often hindering the involvement of certified teachers and nondisabled peers. Susan Unok Marks, Carl Schrader, and Mark Levine, of the Behavioral Counseling and Research Center in San Rafael, California, find that professionally trained classroom teachers are often less prepared than some assistants to work with children in inclusive settings and that, unprepared to supervise assistants, they use this lack of knowledge to avoid teaching children with disabilities.