Talk:Special education - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Harionlad (talk | contribs) at 22:05, 23 June 2009 (→Third opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:05, 23 June 2009 by Harionlad (talk | contribs) (→Third opinion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Alternative education (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative education, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternative educationWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative educationTemplate:WikiProject Alternative educationAlternative education

Education Start‑class

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Sections describing what special education is

Uhmmm .... what happened to the sections that described what special education is, the forms it can take, etc? The article seems to have a huge hole in it without this information. There's the initial definition, abbreviations for the term, and then a bulleted list of criticisms.

Is the problem that special education is handled differently in different countries, so some editors decided to remove the information in order to eliminate conflict about how it should be described?

This article has a very weird structure now, which should be addressed.

Rosmoran (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal?

An editor at Mainstreaming in education first proposed merging Mainstreaming into Inclusion (education). The current proposal is to merge it into Special education. If you have opinions about this please feel free to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Segregation and exclusion

Tigereyes92, you just introduced a bunch of errors, which I have reverted. Note:

Segregation is always a full-time placement. Anything less than full-time is not segregation: it's mainstreaming or inclusion.

It's the absence of non-disabled students, not the absence of general ed teachers, that makes a segregated student be segregated.

What a special needs student has to do to get a normal diploma depends on the student's location. Just because New York, in your personal experience, requires passing a high school exit examination to get a diploma does not mean that every single special needs student in the entire world has to pass an exit exam to get a diploma. Every country, and every state in the U.S., sets its own rules.

Exclusion is about the placement of the student on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with what piece of paper is given to the student on the last day of his or her entire school career. Ryan White was excluded from school at the age of 8 over fears of HIV transmission. Eight year olds are not generally eligible for high school diplomas. In fact, if he had remained excluded (eventually the courts forced the schools to allow him to attend school), and if he hadn't died, he would have received a normal high school diploma.

Please remember that you must never write from your own personal experience. Instead, let me encourage you to find books or magazine articles, and add information from them to this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Edburke, Thank you for your improvements today. I have some concerns about your changes to the "Provision" section. First of all, I think it's a rather American version. Secondly, a student's actual, specific disabilities really does matter. A boy with quadriplegia is not going to make the varsity wrestling team, no matter what kinds of services are available. A student with very severe brain damage, such that she cannot communicate, or even focus her eyes better than you'd expect from a one-day old newborn, cannot realistically be provided with services that will enable her to be fully included in Algebra classes. A student that cannot control his behavior at all -- for example, a disabled student whose response to every single unexpected sight, sound, person, or activity is to scream, throw things, and to try to run away -- cannot realistically be provided with services that will make full inclusion in a classroom with two dozen other children a reasonable option (at least if the safety and education of other students matters in your calculation, as I'm sure it does).

For most disabled students, the availability of services is a critical factor, and I'm glad to have that added to the list. However, for at least some disabled students, the disability matters, too, and we should not remove that information.

Additionally, I have a few minor concerns for you about other changes. The rewrite on "Exclusion" has left us with a factually inaccurate statement. It now begins with "A student who does not attend any school is said to be excluded." However, as I'm sure you'll agree, a homeschooler is not excluded, and a dropout is not excluded, and neither of these classes of children attend any school. This is why the previous language existed: it emphasized that exclusion in this context was strictly due to the disability (such as a student that has been institutionalized). I think it's also appropriate to give some indication that less restrictive environments are entirely appropriate for students with less severe disabilities, and that the most restrictive environments are only considered for the most severely disabled students. The current description makes it sound like the choice of one or the other is just a matter of personal preference.

The "Help for Parents" section is inappropriate because it is US-only. It could, however, be moved to the "External links" section. I'll do that for you in a minute. I'll also fix the formatting on the newly added refs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Thank you for your feedback concerning my edits. I must say that, in general, this whole article needs a lot of work, and hopefully, with time, those of us who want to see a more accurate understanding of what "special education" is all about will be around long enough to do it!

You are correct: mine is an American perspective. I have been working with our federal law for over 30 years. I agree with your point that disabilities DO matter of course. After all, that's why we have something called "special education." My point, however, is that we are moving beyond the point where "level of disability" dictates the "level of segregation/exclusion" experienced by the student.

Not one mile from where I write there is a High School with 4,000 students that enrolls students with quadriplegia, severe autism, etc. No one expects them to be on the football team, but they are part of the life of the school. They receive their services in a typical school building and, yes, these services are often provided in a "separate" room. But nobody would think of having them leave town for their education.

Re: exclusion. I guess to me, "exclusion" means "You're out," and "You're out by order of/or through ignorance of some authority." I really do not see how homeschooling and dropping out (which are both "oluntary" actions) fit into this. I tried to think of other phrasings for "does not attend any school" and finally came up with (in my mind, the more accurate)"does not receive instruction." This might capture it better. Maybe not...

Finally, under the "Help for Parents..." section, the Partners in Policymaking reference is international. I'm not sure if it means we should move it back up or not.

Thank you very much for your careful reading. All the best! EdEdburke317 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

If "Help for Parents" is truly international, then how can it be "government sponsored" (your description)? Presumably the US federal government isn't telling parents how to interact with schools in other countries. After a brief look, I'm not actually sure that it's appropriate for this article, as it doesn't seem to say much about special education. It's about disability advocacy in general. Perhaps it should be proposed at Disability activism instead.

I think the exclusion thing will make more sense if you consider three specific cases:

Child A lives in a rural part of a poor country and has a moderate case of autism. The local school district refuses to allow the child to attend school because he can't sit quietly in a room with sixty other children. The regional education authority does not require the school to provide alternatives, because they realize that they could teach six typically developing children for the price of teaching one student with this set of disabilities.
Child B lives in a wealthy country, but is unable to attend school because leaving the specially constructed equipment at the children's hospital is potentially deadly. (Think David Vetter, Dianne Odell, a child in year-long chemotherapy or radiation for leukemia, or another extreme medical situation.) Instructional video programs are available, and a tutor visits the hospital three days a week.
Child C has Conduct disorder and is serving an eight-year sentence after being convicted of a violent crime. The teenager attends class at least four hours a day, five days a week, and is on track to graduate from high school at the age of 18, but his "school" is in the juvenile prison, and his "classmates" are other teenaged convicts.

All of these kids are being kept out of the regular schools due to their disabilities (directly or indirectly). In all of these cases, the disability has a significant impact on the environment they're in. We need to recognize all three of these cases in this section. In particular, some excluded kids receive instruction, and some don't (or didn't: this needs to cover the historical exclusion as well).

In general, I think it's strange to say that we're "beyond" the point where the disability drives the restrictiveness of the environment. It very much does, but in a positive way: developed countries do not ever segregate kids with dyslexia because that disability is considered so mild -- and fifty years ago, these kids were sometimes labeled mentally retarded and isolated in special schools. So I think that the level of disability does drive the level of restrictiveness -- but in a way that drives most kids out of the restrictive environments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing,

Thanks for your edits and thoughts. It is interesting to discuss this issue from different national perspectives. It reminds me of work on the UN Standard Rules over a decade ago now. So often so many people meant nearly the same thing, only words got in the way. In my latest edit, I went right to the top. I changed the first sentence of the article to believe what I know to be the frequency (at least in Western nations) of special education service modes.

I changed around the "exclusion" language and the language in the next paragraph to reflect your concerns, especially about the plight of children where there is no mandate for education, or where school districts can say, "This is all we offer, take it or leave it."

I have also added another reference to a nation-wide study in the US on inclusionary education. All the best! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edburke317 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My explanation

The goal of special education is to help students achieve a safe childhood. It doesn't promises students to be independent at all. The reason why special education existed is because people in the past abused special needs students. That's why in many countries has special education to help these students have a safer childhood. The reason why we have special education should be explained, not ignored. --Academiic (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, go read some sources about this issue. Special education programs don't promise anything, but in the United States, they are required to address the issue of independence and achievement -- whether that means "independently pushing a buzzer" when attention is wanted, or living in your own apartment and working at a regular job. Your personal experience is not relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Every special education student that graduates from high school can no longer receive special education services. How does this help them achieve independence in the future? Colleges don't provide special education classes at all. --Academiic (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not about my personal experience. I have provided a reference. --Academiic (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The college nearest me provides special education services. So does the college nearest you. Additionally, attending college is not a prerequisite for achieving independence, even of the "move out and live by yourself" kind of independence. A remarkable number of disabled and non-disabled people manage that. Fully 50% of current high school graduates never attend a single college class, and yet you don't see 50% of high school graduates spending the entire rest of their lives living with their parents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source. The source is acceptable. Unfortunately, the source does not say anything about providing a "safe childhood". It does not address past abuse. It therefore cannot be used to claim that the purpose of special education is to prevent child abuse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

They were denied of an education in the past. That's abuse. --Academiic (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that being excluded from an academic institution because of a disability is abusive. That's just your personal opinion. Furthermore, equating "no formal schooling" with child abuse is pretty nonsensical. About 98% of the people in the world were "denied an education" in the past, because hardly anyone went to school, or more than a very few years of school, until modern times. Were 98% of the people born more than 200 years ago victims of child abuse?

More importantly, this point of history doesn't tell us what special education is. It only tells us that special education's (1) widespread use (2) in the United States (3) at government-funded schools is a (4) relatively new thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger with "Special education in the United States"

having looked at the two article there is very similar content and examples and references. about 80% of this artilce is based on Special education privision in the United States, with a few extra examples from the UK to try and make it more global.

There is nothing about the various types of special education provision that may be required dependent on the variety of conditiosn whoch can create the special educational requirement, there is no attempt to expalin any legle or statutory requirements except fro tne US IDEA which only applies in the USA so waht statutes do other countries in the world have in place. Or are they expected to be clones of the USA system. If you want to be an internationally sourced article then you need to have international sources citations, and resaerch. You should not try and impose your countries culture on the rest of the world or assume that all of the world in like the USA.

So your have two choices either delete the nominal references to the UK, and merge with the Special education in the United States, OR become a truely global article with global research citations, global statutes related to this topic, which may require a section per country if you are serious in your intentions

AS i have mention before I am only trying to solve a problem on the Dyslexia project, but i seem to uncover more WIKI problems or lack of a global approach due to the lack of professionalism from so many articles and their editors who have such a small town approach to global issues.

dolfrog (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge I think that the mere fact that the article is unfinished is a wholly insufficient reason to propose eliminating it, especially since most of the information applies to the education of students with disabilities in any country in the world. WP:There is no deadline and {{sofixit}} both apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then you need to re-organise the artilces on your category page to the be arranges per country, so that visitors can seletect the wiki pages realted to their own countries Special education provision, both statutory requirements, the official Special Educatinal Needs support systems, and procedures, and the voluntary support agencies. And you need to remove all refernce to a specific contries Special education systems in this article or include examples from every country in thew world dolfrog (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which "category page" are you talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am told that is article is supposed to represent the generic term "Special Eduction" on wikipedia. Well from the content over that last 2 years always makes reference to issues and opionions from the USA, there is not a global reference or contribution from any where except the USA and may be the UK. But if this article wants to remain a global article and not be move to "Special Education in the USA"; there needs to have references and content that reflects the education systems listed http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Education_by_country or Category:Education_by_country which covers maninstreem education around the world, and the recruitment of some international editors. I think you have some research to do to accomplish a global article.

It may be easier and less hard work to move to "Special Education in the USA" the choice is yours, but do not take too long in making your choice.

dolfrog (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, the answer to your question about how long it takes for an article to be "globalized" is "as soon as you do it yourself."

I'm really unhappy with your negative attitude, and with your apparent inability to see beyond the end of your nose to look at the contents of the article. For example, consider the contents of Special education#Provision: It says that students with special educational needs may receive services in a regular classroom full time, in a special classroom (or entirely separate school) full time, in a combination of the two locations, or completely separate from schools. Can you tell me which part of this is "just about the United States"? Has anyone else in the world ever figured out a way to provide special education services that is simultaneously neither (1) in school, (2) in a special part of a school, (3) out of school, nor (4) some combination of the above? Or are you prepared to admit that this section -- the most important section of the article -- provides information that applies to every possible situation in every single country that provides special education services at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case it will have to wait, I have two other article which require serious research and revision. The problems here are a side issue from the article I am mid way through editing. I have made my own provision for the article I am editing for a support by country category of its own as i can see that your article will never be able to do the job you seem to want to claim for it. There is a saying in the UK "There are more ways to skin cat than just one". What this article lacks is an editor prepared to do the required research so that it can become a global article, and an editor prepared to listen to the international needs of others.

dolfrog (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

request link to Special Education Law Blog

Hi,

I have read your guidelines, and I am requesting a link friom thie article to the Special Education Law Blog at: http://specialeducationlawblog.blogspot.com/

The blog is by a neutral, Jim Gerl, a hearing officer, and provides a balanced perspective.

The legal component of special education is growing rapidly, but it is too big to merit full discussion in this general article.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jim Gerl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spedlaw (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a blog hosted by Blogspot and run by a single person is a terribly good resource. Sorry! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

The new first sentence says:

Special education is the practice, in education, of placing special needs students into different groups within a school, based...

The problem is that it isn't sufficiently inclusive. Special education is also the practice of not placing students into different groups within a school: consider full inclusion (no different groups) and one-on-one teaching (no groups). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If students are in a hospital, homebound, or detained by the criminal justice system (one-on-one teaching), they are in an excluded setting. These students are tracked into an excluded setting. Full inclusion is a controversial practice. It would be best to put that in the inclusion article. It would not make sense to mention full inclusion into the special education article as that would just confuse the readers more. Harionlad (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we need a comprehensive article, not a "highlights of the most common practices in my personal local area" article. That means that we don't tell readers at the beginning that special education is only a particular approach. Special education is truly any kind of education that addresses special needs, regardless of how you happen to go about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We can state special education is a particular approach used by many but we must also state the ones that aren't as used. I made the necessary changes stating full inclusion as a controversial practice with references. Harionlad (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we do not have to pretend that all practices are equally popular.

But we cannot provide a "definition" in the first sentence that makes the reader believe that special education is smaller than it is.

Saying that "special education is the practice of placing students in different groups" -- when we know that special education is that, plus many more things -- is like claiming that "Students with learning disabilities have trouble reading," even when we know that there are students with other kinds of learning disabilities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Special education tracked students in inclusion, mainstreaming, segregated and excluded settings. These are the different groups. Harionlad (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The way this sentence is written, the reader will think that special education always puts students in a different group, meaning "other students who are physically in the same room and receiving the same kind of instruction" compared to a "normal" education program. This is wrong.

You seem to say here that you're talking about "placing students in a group", meaning "mentally classifying the student in a category that might or might not be mentioned on some piece of paperwork written by the school administrator," which is not exactly wrong, but which is completely unimportant. Whether or not the school officially classifies a student as being "included" or "mainstreamed" or something else does not tell us what special education is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: The act of classifying a student as "mainstreamed" is not the same thing as meeting that child's individual special needs for education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are telling me special education is nothing like tracking? It tracks special needs students into inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion to help meet their needs. Harionlad (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm telling you that special education can be accomplished with no tracking at all. The entire state of California does it: tracking is illegal in California. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How come there is inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion? What is the purpose of it? Harionlad (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that section in the article? To describe what happens in the real world.

The purpose of those programs in the real world? To provide special services to students with widely divergent needs, according to each individual's actual needs, in a series of interrelated programs that might (if we're lucky) be somewhat efficient in terms of staff time and supplies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How come some students are segregated? Obviously, they are tracked into it because their needs require it. How can you say it is not tracking? Harionlad (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) This explanation might make more sense. Here's the difference:

"Tracking" is not the same as "getting stuck in a particular track." In tracking, I take 100% of students in the entire town, and I line them up from least proficient at academic work to most proficient, and I divide the line up according to how many classrooms I have. We'll say I have three classrooms. The students at one end of the line are placed in the "not so good at school work" class (even if normally I'd only say that about a couple of the students), the next is the "normal at school work", and the last is "pretty good at school work" (even if normally I'd only say that about a couple of them). I try to put every single student in the entire town in a classroom with other students that I believe are achieving at approximately the same level. All students attend class with students whose skills are similar to their own, and all students are placed in a class according to whether they are better or worse than the entire school's average. Tracking can be run simultaneously with special ed: You can track all of your typical students and have an entirely separate program for students with severe disabilities. Many nations do this.
In special education systems, I ignore all of the non-special education students; if there are too many to fit in one classroom, then they are randomly divided up and the school simply doesn't care who ends up in which class.
For those few students with special needs, I look at each individual student with special needs separately, I figure out that single student's needs separately, and I decide what kind of a program might work best for that individual student, completely ignoring what might happen to anyone else.
It happens that in a large enough area, I'll probably have enough kids with similar needs that I can make a full class of students with matching needs (this is how alternative schools are born), but that doesn't matter: I'm placing this specific child in this particular program because this child needs these precise services.

Placing a student in a segregated classroom is not considered "tracking" because the students are placed in self-contained classrooms because their own needs can be most effectively addressed this way (special education), and not because of how they compare to other students (tracking).

Let's pretend that having green hair is a problem in school. (Perhaps it makes you sick if the teacher is boring.) In a tracking system, you'd line up the students from most green hair to the least green hair, divide by the number of classrooms you have (we'll say three), and there's your three classrooms: green, brown, and red-haired students (and we assign the most boring teacher to the red-haired class, because boredom won't make them sick). Some of the so-called "green" students might not have very much green hair, but they were closer to green than the person next to them, so they're called green and placed in the green-haired class. Some of the so-called red-haired students might have very brown-looking hair, but their hair was a bit redder than the next person down the line, so they're called "red-haired" now. That's tracking: what matters is how you compare to other students.

Now compare this to a special education system: Only those students with really obvious green hair are special ed students. All the others get randomly divided up, because we don't really care which teacher the typical students get. Then we consider only the students with obviously green hair, one student at a time: what does each individual student need? Maybe they have different ideas of what "boring" is. We design a teaching system for each and every student to reduce the odds of that student getting sick. Perhaps that means that the green-haired boys play edutainment computer games, and the green-haired girls get lots of group projects so they can talk (except for the boy that doesn't like the educational games and the girl that doesn't like group projects) -- but it's all about each child's specific, personal, individual needs, not about how the student compares to anyone else.

Furthermore, in tracking systems, it's typically fairly hard to change tracks -- because whether or not you could do well in a "higher" track is unimportant; you have to prove that you'd achieve better than someone else already in that track -- but in individualized special education programs, an individual student can change education programs at any time, so long as the change is really appropriate (which it usually isn't, since radical changes in student needs are not that common: students with severe disabilities can reasonably be expected to continue having those same disabilities from one year to the next). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence that I wrote only states tracking special needs students. It never mentioned about tracking typical students. Special education is still tracking students into groups. I don't understand your views at all. Your intro is not clear to the readers. The intro I put in tells readers that special education tracks students. If they didn't, how come people criticize special education classes for its watered-down curriculum? That's the result in tracking. The low-track students don't progress. Harionlad (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Tracking does not mean "giving some kids a worse education". It means "putting kids in a class with other kids like them." That class could provide exactly the same education as the other classes.

Or are you asking me why none of the students with mental retardation are taking honors math classes? Because that's where those "watered-down curriculum" complaints come from -- a desire to force every child to master exactly the same material, even if that material is wildly inappropriate for the student's actual capabilities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Students with learning disabilities are in special education classes too. It's not just for students with mental retardation. They have to suffer from the watered-down curriculum as well. It really is not fair how these students are treated. In college, the curriculum is no longer watered-down. So why in high school is it like that but in college they expect learning-disabled students to learn just like everyone else? Harionlad (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, your complaints don't seem to have anything to do with improving the article. To get back on topic: there are students with special needs in advanced academic classes, too, and those students often do quite well in college. For example, students with blindness, deafness, and paralysis are all special education students, and none of those conditions impair their ability to succeed in college. I've personally encountered a true genius with a learning disability that meant he could not spell, two brilliant students with serious mental illnesses, and several honors students with dyslexia and similar processing disorders. All of these were "special education students" and all of them succeeded in honors-level classes and in college. Some of them had to work harder than others students, but all succeeded. These students were not "placed in different groups within a school" like you were defining special education. They were given the services they needed without placing them in any kind of group. This is why we can't define special education as "the act of placing students in different groups within a school". There are a lot of special ed students that do not have the same experience that you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be more neutral? It shouldn't reflect on certain people with these experiences. Special education students who are more advanced are grouped into inclusive setting. They aren't grouped into mainstreaming, segregated or excluded setting. Harionlad (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that it is reasonable to say that a student that gets ten extra minutes on a test because she writes more slowly -- even though this is a "special needs" student who is receiving "special education" -- is "grouped" with anybody. I do not think that it is reasonable to say that the student whose "special need" is "must have a nurse give him a pill every day at lunch" is "grouped" with anybody, even though this student is receiving services within the (US) definition of "special education." I don't think that a student who uses a wheelchair -- even though this is always a "special needs" student and therefore receives a "special education" -- is "grouped" with anybody. Do you think these students are placed in groups?

These "special education" students are all just regular students that need a slightly different service from the school. They're no more "grouped" than a typical student is -- and you certainly can't define special ed as "grouping students" if your definition of regular ed is also "grouping students". That leaves us with no difference between special education and plain old education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about the minor things such as getting ten extra minutes or the student who requires a wheelchair. I'm talking about special needs students who are judged as requiring more attention are grouped in the segregation group. Harionlad (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that your focus is on the students who were segregated, because that's what happened to you. But your personal experience of special education is not the be-all and end-all of special education. These are all special education students, and you are not allowed to redefine special education to exclude those real, true, bona fide special education students. Do you understand what I'm telling you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is about special education students being tracked into inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion. This is what I have been trying to tell you. I have asked a third opinion to resolve this issue. Harionlad (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Since there are no reliable sources that claim that tracking (as widely used in Europe; see, e.g., Education in Germany) is the same as special education, and since there is no reason to believe that providing services, such as described above, to a student who spends all day in a regular classroom and does all the normal coursework, results in practice in having assigned the student to a "track", then I suspect that the person giving the third opinion will find the issue quite simple. I hope that this will end this unnecessarily lengthy dispute over this obvious misunderstanding based on your personal experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that claim that special education doesn't use tracking. I suspect that the person giving the third opinion will find much difficulty in resolving the issue. Perhaps, the person giving the third opinion would suggest other ways in providing a neutral point of view. Harionlad (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tracking is not about special needs students. Let's try this differently: When my husband was tracked in the German gymnasium system -- and he was definitely tracked -- it had nothing to do with his special needs, because he doesn't have any. When the kid next to him was tracked into the Hauptschule, it had nothing to do with his special needs, because he didn't have any: he was just a kid who would rather play soccer than read a book. Nearly 100% of German children are tracked after Grundschule ("elementary school"). Nearly 100% of German children are not receiving special education.

The purpose of special education is to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities and to provide children with disabilities access to education. -- note that this is different from "Special education is dividing students into groups."
Special education is instruction that is specially designed to meet the unique needs of students who have disabilities. -- not one word about dividing students into groups.
The purpose of Special Education programs is to provide a free and appropriate public education that meets the needs of Special Education-eligible students -- again, the word "track" doesn't appear on the page.
"Special education is not tracking", four paragraphs from the end of this article in The Seattle Times.
See also the legal definition of special education in the US federal law IDEA (20 USC 1401 §602, paragraph 29): "Special education.--The term `special education' means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability." There's not one word in that definition that refers to dividing kids into groups. This is because special education is not a place: it's what you do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the US. The article is supposed to reflect every single country. We can't use a US definition of special education. This article is completely biased if we are using the US definition. The article in the The Seattle Times is based on one person's opinion. And I don't agree. The person who attacked special education has every right to comment. Some people agree with his views. It's not a matter on who is right. These are just opinions by educators. "How would he assist a learning-disabled 15-year-old reading at a second-grade level? What would he do with the student who simply lacks the mental ability to do mathematics beyond simple addition? Forcing such students into regular classrooms does them no service." You can't say that to a student who is in college. If you can't do math in college, you are still forced into regular classrooms. Colleges are not going to put learning-disabled students in special classes because that would be cheating them by giving them a watered-down curriculum. Harionlad (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So? You still haven't provided a single source that says that anyone, anywhere in the world -- except you -- thinks that tracking (education) is the same thing as special education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Ralph DeBruler attacked special education. He is basically saying that the special needs students are treated differently than regular students. He says that they failed special needs students in bringing them "up to grade". All of this is the result of tracking. He doesn't say it specifically but we know that's what he meant. It's like describing a person who gets along well with people. You don't have to say that this person is nice because the person gets along well with people. People know that this person is nice without people telling them. Harionlad (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DeBruler does not say that special education is tracking. You said that special education is tracking. Your interpretation of this violates the "No original research" policy. You have also failed to provide a single source that says that what nearly every country in Europe does -- tracking (education) -- is the same as special education. We therefore cannot say this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So you can't say that special education is not tracking based on their opinion. They haven't done any studies that show that it is not tracking.

This source questions rather children in segregated environments feel it is a stigma or a gift. Therefore, special education is not tracking has not been studied carefully. If they are still questioning, obviously the issue hasn't been resolved. Harionlad (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That source is not about special education. It's about whether or not kids that are doing poorly should flunk first grade. This article has not attempted to assert the claim that special education never uses tracking; it is possible to do both, after all. You have attempted to define special education solely as tracking (education). The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources that define special education as dividing all kids with special needs into different groups (your made-up definition), instead just providing services to whoever needs them (the definition supported by all of the reliable sources I've seen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article mentioned the students as "special needs". How could you say that it's not about special education? Kids are being retained because the school did not provide appropriate services in the first time around. The second time around, these kids are segregated. They questioned rather segregation is a stigma or a gift. Harionlad (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article said that when the school placed her son in the 1st-2nd transitional class instead of promoting him to second grade, one mother thought that the school was trying to tell her that her son was disabled. "I thought it was a polite way of saying he’s a special-needs child" does not mean that this is actually a child with special needs or that the child is actually receiving special education. There is no evidence that any of the kids in this class have any disabilities at all: they were all of them younger than average, and now have average or above-average skills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that special education is solely as tracking. They are being tracked into different groups according to special education regulations.

Of course they are doing better now they are in the segregated class. Once the kids have proven that they have the skills, they can return to the regular class. Harionlad (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly did define special education as tracking: You wrote, "Special education is the practice, in education, of placing special needs students into different groups within a school." The act of placing students into different groups is not "special education". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion are the groups. If they aren't, what are they? These groups help educators teach special needs students and to facilitate learning for everyone. Harionlad (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

There is a lot of back and forth above so I'm going to concentrate on the meaning of the proposed sentence

Special education is the practice, in education, of placing special needs students into different groups within a school, based...

and its accuracy in defining special ed. The largest public school system in North America has this to say about special ed. In particular, I noted that the article says That means they are spending the majority of the school day alongside their non-disabled peers. and These services include interventions and strategies in the general education environment for struggling students. Note the use of 'alongside' and 'general education environment'. Both quotes point to the focus of special education, at least within the New York City school systems, as being one of inclusion rather than grouping or tracking. Since this is undoubtedly one of the largest providers of special education services in the world, there is little question in my mind that the proposed sentence is not representative of special education as practiced since it is too specific to cater to what one of the largest special ed providers does. The description in this version is far more representative. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If special needs students are segregated, they are not spending the majority of the school day alongside their non-disabled peers. I propose revising the first sentence. Harionlad (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

Please explain what in this article makes you think that it "reflects on certain people with these experiences" or otherwise isn't neutral. (Note that "neutral" is different from "polite", but I think that both are achievable in this article.) Please point out specific sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Special education is the education of students with special needs in a way that addresses the students' individual differences and needs." It has never address students' individual differences and needs. Tracking does not allow students' needs to be met. It may meet the higher functioning students needs better but overall it really doesn't work. In the provision section, it states inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation, and exclusion. It would be clearer if readers understood that these are the groups that special needs students are tracked in based on academic abilities. Harionlad (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have confused "addressing" special needs with "eliminating" special needs. The word address means "to direct your efforts towards", not "to be successful at totally solving every problem". "Addressing" only requires that you make an effort (even a small effort, even an unsuccessful effort) to do something about a special need.

The opposite of "address" is "ignore". If you completely ignore a student's special needs, then you are not providing special education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Special education is not really about addressing the students' individual differences and needs. It's about a group of people who work together in helping the special needs student succeed to the best of his ability. Tracking allows special needs students to succeed to the best of his ability. Critics of tracking however don't agree. But that doesn't really matter as that's not the point. Harionlad (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So your complaint about NPOV violations is basically that you want to define special education as being identical to tracking (education)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well at least the readers can understand special education process realistically instead of special education being portrayed as being "unique" for the "special" child. Every child is special. It's not only for children with disabilities. The entire special education approach only pays attention to certain children. It's like special children are the most important people in the world. There is so much arrogance about people with disabilities. They force regular children to gain sympathy for the disabled children in the class. In order for this article to remain neutral is for it to encourage regular kids to start treating disabled kids as regular people who just need extra help. We can't have an article that encourages disabled people to feel they are more important than others. Arrogance is bad. This article should strive to have a neutral tone in writing. This way when people read it, they won't have to feel sympathy towards the disabled. What's wrong with just saying that the disabled are just like regular people but just need a little bit of extra help? That sounds better and it doesn't make regular people feel bad. Harionlad (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that "unique" and "special" mean "better"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The terms "unique" and "special" just sounds confidential which describes the special education process. It’s like they don't want regular people to know about it. The best part about Misplaced Pages is that it allows people to fully understand special education. It's out in the open, not in private anymore. Why not let people fully understand it? Special education is tracking because it tracks each special needs student into their own group. Kids feel left out because of tracking but their parents encourage that it’s for the better. But in reality, it's not good for them in the long run. Harionlad (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. "Unique" means "different" or "not like others." "Special" means "unusual," "different," or "designed for a particular thing." I think that it is reasonable to describe students with learning differences as being unique, and to describe the education that is not the usual one, but designed for the particular needs of a student as "special" education. It does not "encourage disabled people to feel they are more important than others," as you asserted above. It simply means that the way you teach them is (a little bit) different from the way you teach typical students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Would special-needs student be the correct spelling? Sorry for being picky---I was just reading the guidelines of hyphenation and happened to parachute in to see if I was informed enough to comment on the current dispute over the wording of the first sentence. Anyway, I'll leave it up to all of you to decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neffk (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if it's two words in regular English, but not if it's a term of the art (in which case, it's considered to be a single word for these purposes, even though it's got a space in the middle; compare the hyphenation of a multiword proper noun like "New York"). I'm not sure how this term is classified these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: