NAMING AND MAINTAINING 1 NAMING AND ...

NAMING AND MAINTAINING

1

NAMING AND MAINTAINING: TWO BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR VIABLE AND VIBRANT SPECIAL EDUCATION

James M. Kauffman University of Virginia

Dimitris Anastasiou Southern Illinois University Carbondale

Book Chapter: Kauffman, J. M. & Anastasiou, D. (2018). Nomear e manter: Dois requisitos básicos para uma educação especial viável e vibrante [Naming and maintaining: Two basic requirements for viable and vibrant special education]. In L. M. Correia (Ed.), Educação Inclusiva & Necessidades Educacionais Especiais [Inclusive education and special needs] (pp. 35-54). Braga, Portugal: Flora Editora.


2

Brief Introduction to the History of Current Problems Special education has existed as a separate, special entity in public and private education for over a century (see Gerber, 2017; Kauffman, 1981; Kauffman & Landrum, 2006). The idea of merging special with general education or actually diluting special to general education became popular in the 1980s especially with the regular education initiative (REI) under Ronald Reagan’s administration (see Goodlad & Lovitt, 1993; Lloyd, Repp, & Singh, 1991). The idea flourished and became part of the movement toward full inclusion of all children with disabilities in general education. Eventually, the movement toward full inclusion became popular worldwide and is now an objective of Article 24 (Education) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of the United Nations (Anastasiou, Gregory, & Kauffman, 2018; see also Hornby, 2014, Imray & Colley, 2017 and Kauffman, Hallahan, Pullen, & Badar, 2018). For a variety of reasons, the movement toward merging the two types of education (special and general) and including all children with disabilities in general education schools and classrooms has been seen as unwise and likely leading to the dissolution of a viable and vibrant special education (e.g., Kauffman, Anastasiou, Badar, & Hallenbeck, 2018; Kauffman, Anastasiou, Badar, Travers, & Wiley, 2016; Kauffman, Anastasiou, & Maag, 2017). In this chapter, we give attention to two major requirements of special education if it is to be viable and vibrant—existing as a separate entity and robust. To be the support system it should be, special education must accomplish two major purposes: (a) maximizing impact on learning for students with disabilities, and (b) giving them the exceptional education they must have to become the most productive and successful citizens they can be in a socially just and inclusive society. These two requirements of special education


3

that is sustainable and effective are (1) naming objects or, in disability sciences, by assigning diagnostic categories to designate students we want to talk about, and (2) maintaining special education as a visible and sustainable subsystem in a general system of education (i.e., making sure that its objectives, characteristics, properties, and functions are not lost in the mega-system of education). Naming Naming and Advancement of a Field of Study and Practice A basic cognitive function is to categorize using names for a group of objects (which can be properties, actions, states or conditions) that can allow further mental representations and categorization (Medin, Ross, & Markman, 2005). Generally speaking, naming is a conventional linguistic label attached to an object or phenomenon, serving to identify it. “Names are tags or labels that facilitate identification” (Bunge, 2003, p. 190). Naming with specificity and precision is important in any scientific endeavor. Naming in science can be a process from a set of objects into a set of names (Bunge, 2003). As a line of work develops, whether scientific or the application of empirical knowledge to it, its language becomes increasingly differentiated, specific, and based on correspondence between words and particular objects (see Kauffman, 2013). This observation holds for the most highly scientific fields of study and the most common professions. For this reason, the appeal to abandon diagnostic naming or to use only more general names (labels) in the fields of disability and special education is usually regressive, not progressive. It is an appeal to avoid discussion (for one simply cannot refer to an object of study without using a word—a term—to describe it) or to discuss disabilities or special needs in more general, less specific terms. Naming is part and parcel of any scientific field, something that cannot be avoided except by denial that it exists or


4

is observed. Furthermore, what really matters is if a concept (the unit of thought), which is linked to and/or symbolized by a term or statement (the linguistic expression of knowledge), has a high degree of precision and validity (Bunge, 2017). We could provide many examples of how scientific terms are necessary and become ever more refined and specific with the development of a field of study and practice, following elucidation of concepts. Elucidation is achieved through evidence, exemplification, analysis, definition and reduction (Bunge, 2017). The implication for special education is that trying to eliminate “labels”–under a nominalist influence that gives priority to language over thought and reality—is not only impossible but that a restriction on naming is likely to inhibit discussion of any disabilities, but especially discussion of a particular disability or the most invisible and mind-related forms of debility. Furthermore, the contention that disabilities exist only because we name or construct them (i.e., that they are only named reifications) has profoundly negative consequences for special education (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011; Kauffman et al., 2017). Misuse and Abuse of Terms We wish not to be misunderstood here. Terms can be abused, misused, or misunderstood. One way of misusing terms is to misname, to use the wrong word, to use a word to call something it is not. This can be a matter of mistaking one object for another, but it can also be reification—assuming that using a word for something makes that thing real. What primarily matters is the nominatum, that is, the named object, and its factual truth (Bunge, 2003, 2017). Another way of misusing or misunderstanding a term is to assume that it explains all we need to know about a condition or phenomenon or to imbue it with explanatory power that it does not have. Yet another way to abuse names is to use them as epithets, as belittling or condemnatory, using them deliberately to stigmatize, and this bias is more common in every-day life than in


5

scientific endeavor, with a notable exception being Germany’s Nazi era. For example, the labels “snake,” “low energy,” or “lazy” may be used legitimately, “snake” to name a general class of reptiles, “low energy” to describe a battery or electronic device, or “lazy” to describe the characteristic of a day. However, all these labels can be used as epithets to describe people as despicable, unqualified, or undesirable. In short, truly scientific terms are words that usually are not themselves problematic, and they become problematic when they are misused. They are a necessary, indispensable part of communication, and an internal intellectual tool. We might consider something as simple as the progression from more general to more specific as this: domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. Or learning, reading, phonetic, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, metalinguistic awareness (a process which can generate “class concepts” or “relation concepts” such as metalinguistic awareness; Bunge, 2017). Sometimes, it is also important to understand the difference between two terms, such as impairment and disability (e.g., Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2013). A case in point illustrating misunderstanding of the content of terms involves intellectual disability (ID). Bogdan and Taylor (1994) claimed that “labeling” provides a cloak of incompetence that the individual cannot overcome, and also “a scientific legitimacy to social control and oppression” (p. 15). In addition, they contended that, The label ‘mentally retarded’ creates barriers to our understanding people on their own terms. It prevents us from seeing and treating the people so defined as human beings with feelings, understandings, and needs. When we label people, we lose the ability to empathize with them to see the world from their point of view. (Bogdan & Taylor, 1994, p. 222)


6

Overemphasizing the power of language, the role of sociocultural structures and perceptions, and considering that disabilities are just discourse and text, Bogdan and Taylor (1994) disregarded the “fact that intellectual disability is also an ontological reality that makes a real difference to one’s experience of being in the world” (Klotz, 2004, p. 98; see also Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011). In the tradition of labeling theory and social constructionist theory, Kliewer, Biklen, and Peterson (2015) contended that ID is essentially a socially constructed phenomenon in which “deficit ideology” leads people to misunderstand the nature of ID and its implications for the inclusion of people with it. Denying factual truths, Kliewer and his coauthors seem to be unaware of or unwilling to accept the reality that social support will be eroded for a disability by statements that the disability is imaginary or created by only by supposition or by a label. Furthermore, they seem oblivious of how such arguments as theirs, and related false claims about “presumption of competence” (Kliewer et al., 2015, p. 3) and “facilitated communication training” (p. 8), are likely to lead to such tragic consequences as those experienced by Anna Stubblefield (see Engber, 2015). Dr. Stubblefield was a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University who used a thoroughly discredited procedure popularized by Biklen called facilitated communication (FC) (see Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick, 2016; Mostert, 2001; Travers, Tincani, & Lang, 2014). (see Jacobson, Foxx, & Mulick, 2016; Mostert, 2001; Travers, Tincani, & Lang, 2014). FC has been renamed “rapid prompting” to try to avoid the taint of hoax, but it remains essentially the same fraud. Stubblefield used FC with one of her clients, a young man with severe ID. She was subsequently convicted in court of sexually abusing a man much younger than she. The man had cerebral palsy and severe ID, but she claimed he was intellectually competent and


7

they were in love—based on her use of FC. The man cannot speak, wears a diaper, and is considered by his family to have a toddler’s intelligence. ID will not be ended by pretense that it is only a misleading label, a social construction or the arbitrary product of a scientific community. People with ID should be treated with dignity and respect. Such treatment begins with recognition of the reality of ID and with understanding of what that diagnostic term means and what it does not. Changing Terms Occasionally, words (terms) are vague, fuzzy, and extremely polysemous, especially in emerging protoscientific periods, or become so commonly misused or misunderstood that they are problematic. Then we must decide whether to change the term, that is, start using a different word to refer to the same object, or change attitudes, reaction to, or understanding of what is named by the word. In the case of fuzziness or bias, changing the word used to refer to something is a good idea because it can better attribute the relationship between the term and its referent. But sometimes when that is done, the “new” word may eventually carry many problems of the “old” label unless understanding of the object to which it refers is also changed. Sometimes, perhaps, it is wise to retain the term that is misunderstood and work, instead, simply on better understanding of the retained term. Perhaps some examples will help clarify what is at issue. Usually, changes of names change only after decades of use. For example, idiocy, a medical term of the 19th century designating what was later called mental retardation (e.g., see Seguin, 1866) has a long history of word changes. The generic “idiocy” of the 19th century (a term replacing the common name “fool,” which had been used for centuries), was eventually replaced by feeblemindedness and subdivided into three levels of increasing severity: moron,


8

imbecile, and idiot by the Committee on Classification of Feebleminded of the American Association on Mental Deficiency in 1910 (Scheerenberger, 1983, pp. 138-140). Undoubtedly, these terms and classifications reflect pre-scientific concepts influenced by the social perceptions and eugenics spirit of the “progressive era” (1900-1919). That language was replaced by the term “mental deficiency” and later “mental retardation” and the levels of increasing severity: educable, trainable, totally-dependent or custodial (Kirk, 1962). Most recently, the terminology has been changed from mental retardation to “intellectual disability” with levels severity mild, moderate, severe, and profound or levels of support needed, intermittent, limited, extensive, or pervasive (Schalock et al., 2010). Stigma and desire for label changes have followed each change of language. Likewise, professional and advocacy organizations have changed their names, always so far to find that a change of language alone does not solve the problems of social stigma and distaste for the condition to which the name refers. For example, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) changed its name to the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR), then to American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). The journals published by the organization likewise changed their names. But public perceptions of the condition to which reference is made has probably changed less because of name changes and more because of understanding of the condition. The most frequently identified category of disability in the USA is learning disability (LD). This term also has changed over a period of decades and undoubtedly will continue changing. As Martin (2017) noted, the following are some of the terms that have been used to describe individuals with a form of LD: Neurological Language Disorder, Minimal Brain Dysfunction (which can be considered protoscientifific terms), Learning Disabilities, Specific


9

Learning Disabilities, Language and Learning Disabilities, Learning Differences, and, of course Dyslexia. Dyscalculia has been used to name learning disabilities regarding mathematics. Terms may change because (a) one is more acceptable to those involved or because they are considered less stigmatizing, (b) there has been an advance in understanding, exemplification, definition, and specificity, (c) they provide access to special services that otherwise would be denied, or (d) some combination of these reasons. We might consider also instances in which a term has not changed but public perceptions and reactions have changed dramatically because of increased understanding of individuals or processes. For example, public perceptions of and reactions to cancer and to people who have it have improved dramatically without changing the term “cancer” to something thought all along to be less stigmatizing or threatening (e.g., “neoplasm,” “prolific cell division,” perhaps abbreviated PCD or some other euphemism). Perhaps homosexuals figured out that changes words (names) like “homosexual” and “gay” were not the root of the problem, but the root problem was greater understanding of what these words signify and what they do not. Certainly, elucidation and specification (see LGBTIQ, the acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning) has been an ongoing and useful process achieved through exemplification, analysis, and definition. Euphemism may seem to “work” for a time, in that people react to the replacement word with less horror or distaste, but it is the understanding of the referent, not the rewording, that is most important in making naming (labeling) less stigmatizing. A clear and present danger in using a euphemism, particularly if it is a word applying to everyone, is its becoming the butt of bad jokes. Using “challenge” and its variants to refer to disabilities is an example related to special education; “associate” is an example from the world of business.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 10 Modulating Names for Their Audience An unwarranted assumption is that all terms are appropriate for all audiences. Those least likely to understand the meaning of a term are most likely to misuse or abuse it and attribute explanatory power to the term that it does not have. Terms often need to be explained to people who have or have a child with a particular condition and who need special treatment that most individuals do not get. This is true in special education, as it is also in medicine and related fields of addressing human needs. Terms are often known by their shorthand or abbreviations, as is true in many fields, including special education. Special education has its own “alphabet soup” such as IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) IEP (individual education program), FAPE (free, appropriate public education) and various abbreviated references to longer terms for both categories of disability and procedures or processes. This is also true of many other professions, such as medicine, law, and engineering. The “alphabet soup” of any profession or line of work may need to be explained to someone unfamiliar with it, but such simplifications often speed communication among those familiar with them. A common misunderstanding of terms and naming is that they may be legitimate or unsuitable for particular audiences. Thus, professionals communicating with each other may legitimately and productively use terms that are more specific or precise than those used in communicating with children or the general public. But, this is true of language use in general. The nature of the audience determines the need to know, the vocabulary, the use of colloquialisms, and so on. People may feel “talked down to” or become confused when the language of the speaker is not properly modulated for the audience. This holds for physicians communicating with other physicians versus physicians talking to children or people with limited

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 11 language, as well as educators communicating with other teachers versus teachers talking with children, parents of those children, others with limited knowledge of education, or people with limited understanding of language. Concluding Comments on Naming Again, we emphasize the fact that something cannot be discussed at all without a name for it and that movement toward more general, less specific names indicates typically regression, not progress, in any field of study and practice. As a notable exception, Asperger syndrome and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) were deleted as distinct diagnostic categories, and are now folded into one broad category of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Among his astute observations, Martin (2017) included the following: “As states and districts move to “One size fits All Inclusion,” “mild disabilities,” non-specialized teachers and placements,” I think some see [the term] Dyslexia as a ticket to special services, and, as such may be more than a more acceptable label.” Although terms, like anything else, can be abused and misused, special education and related disciplines must come to grips with their indispensability. These professions must redouble their efforts to (1) use the most accurate and least stigmatizing terms that designate a problem, (2) understand what a term means and does not mean, and (3) use terms and other language devices that are most appropriate for the audience. Maintaining (Distinctiveness) Organizational Requirements Any endeavor or social project requires distinctiveness along several dimensions if it is to flourish and operate effectively within a larger organization. These include visibility, identity,

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 12 borders, status, personnel, clear focus, budget, and authority. All were discussed by Goodlad (1990), who presented the case for education’s needing all these things in the context of higher education. That is, Goodlad argued that these are critically important for a viable and vibrant discipline of education in an institution of higher education. If the discipline of education does not have these things, under the assumption that it is to be an integral part of higher education’s mission (i.e., it is part of every faculty member’s duty an institution of higher education), then it becomes derelict. Integration of the discipline of education into higher education predictably leads to the demise of education as a discipline, to neglect, powerlessness, invisibility, demoralization, and failure. Kauffman and Hallahan (1993) noted how the same dimensions of visibility, identity, borders, status, personnel, clear focus, budget, and authority apply to special education subsystem within the larger organization of general education. We might consider how these organizational dimensions apply to government and business organizations and higher education. For example, in all cases, things that are considered really important are highlighted, made more visible by virtue of their separate identity, are given status and personnel, have a clear mission or focus that is not that of any other unit in the organization, have a designated budget, and are given authority to spend, hire, fire, and direct resources to accomplish their mission. Conversely, things that are considered less important are merged with other units in the organization. Merging an organizational unit with another along any of the dimensions mentioned by Goodlad gives it secondary status, reduces its visibility and authority, diminishes its control of budget and personnel—in short renders it “an orphan, dependent on charity and goodwill” (Goodlad, 1990, p. 153). Kauffman and Hallahan (1993) concluded with this observation:

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 13 After a long period of struggle, special education has finally achieved the status of a normal part of public general education and has been integrated into the fabric of our thinking about students’ special needs. It has done so only by recognizing the realities of which Goodlad speaks, and it will remain such only if it is successful in fending off the entrepreneurial interests and irresponsible attacks that threaten its hard-won position. (p. 98) Influences of Anti-Science Special education has flirted with, and in some cases accommodated or acquiesced to, anti-scientific ideologies known by various names but fitting the more general categories of postmodernism and/or social constructionism (e.g., see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011, 2013; Kauffman et al., 2017; Kauffman & Sasso, 2006; Sasso 2001, 2007). The effect of all these ideologies has been profoundly negative in their influence in steering special education away from its incorporation of scientific evidence regarding the nature and treatment of disabilities. Anti-scientific ideologies are not only hostile to a given body of scientific knowledge but also to the scientific outlook and the scientific method (Bunge, 2001). Instead, they assert that “truth” does not exist or is made by power, not by scientific evidence available to anyone regardless of their personal identity. These ideologies (e.g., neurodiversity movement) stand in stark contrast to public, scientific evidence (Kauffman et al., 2017; Mostert, Kauffman, & Kavale, 2003; Mostert, Kavale, & Kauffman, 2008; see also Blackburn, 2005; Neiman, 2008). A recapitulation of the philosophical arguments involved is beyond the limits of our discussion here. Suffice it to say that abandonment of empirical evidence and the scientific method as the foundational principles of special education has contributed to loss of those organizational features that accompany a viable, vibrant social project (Kauffman et al., 2017).

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 14 The “alternative narratives,” or “alternative facts” of postmodern/social constructivist jargon and the assumption that science yields only “fake information” undermine special education’s identity, authority, clear focus, and other necessities of special education’s existence. Equation of Cultural Differences and Disabilities Some special educators have argued that separate always means segregated, even in the case of disability, so that separate programs for students with disabilities are like the racial segregation of schools. For example, Stainback and Stainback (1991) recounted the finding of the U. S. Supreme Court in the matter of racially segregated school that “separate is inherently unequal.” The Stainbacks did not seeming to understand that students with disabilities are entitled to unequal treatment better than what they would receive in general education. Kauffman and Landrum (2009) explained how skin color or parentage and disability have very different implications for education. Arguments like those of the Stainbacks are full of compassion, but such arguments do not lead to effective education for students with disabilities. In fact, they lead to regression and, eventually, to abandonment of special education as embodied in the U. S. federal law known as IDEA, not to progress in effective special education. Refusal to see that the differences called disabilities require special accommodations in education that some other forms of diversity do not has become common and has influenced the thinking even of some special educators. For example, Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and Thurlow (2000) suggested that special education students should have experiences (we suppose that means be treated, educated, or taught) exactly like those of nondisabled students. For they stated, “Watered-down curricula, alternative grading practices, special competency standards, and other ‘treat them differently’ practices used with ‘special’ students must be replaced with school experiences exactly like those used with ‘regular’ students” (Ysseldyke et al., 2000, p. 67).

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 15 The assumption that all forms of separation or that separation is inherently evil needs to be challenged by rational discourse. Racial segregation and the “Jim Crow” laws of the U. S. were, indeed, pernicious nonsense. However, applying that conclusion to separate education of students with disabilities is equally nonsensical. “Dedicated” is a more appropriate term than “segregated” for the separate but special education of students with disabilities (Gliona, Gonzales, & Jacobson, 2005). Kauffman (1989) noted that “segregated” when applied without consideration of how color and disability are different for education is an affront to reason and to both children of color and those with disabilities. This is the case because the two attributes (color and disability) are starkly different in their nature, their past treatment, and the appropriate education of individuals (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2012; Anastasiou, Kauffman & Michail, 2016). Popularity of Multi-Tiered Frameworks Considerable criticism has been directed toward the traditional two tiers of general and special education. Education having more than two “tiers”—commonly called a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS)—has become a popular idea or “framework” in the USA. This idea actually grew out of ideas first mentioned and tried out in the late 20th century (Kauffman, Badar, & Wiley, in press). The first explicit multi-tiered framework was called response to intervention or response to instruction (RTI). Variations on the theme or framework have been called MTSS, PBIS (positive behavioral interventions and supports) and it is likely other names will be invented for the basic idea of three or more “tiers” of education. The fundamental notion of a multi-tiered system is that the first or basic tier (Tier 1) will be characterized by good, evidence-based instruction and behavior management (i.e., instruction and behavior management presumably based on scientific evidence). If a student does not

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 16 respond well to Tier 1, then he or she will receive Tier 2 instruction or management in which additional supports or more focused procedures are provided. Given that the student does not respond well to procedures used in Tier 2, then Tier 3 instruction and management—highly targeted and adapted to individual need—will be employed. On the descending side of tiers, students who respond successfully to procedures in Tier 3 could be moved to Tier 2, and those responding well to Tier 2 could be reassigned to Tier 1. Tiers may have some good features, but they do not really address many persistent criticisms of special education and leave many important questions unanswered (Kauffman, 2016; Kauffman, Badar, & Wiley, in press). Students still must be sorted, it is inevitable that they will be labeled (even unofficially), they will have different curricula and held to different standards, and the sorting into tiers will necessarily be arbitrary and at least partially depend on subjective judgments. Moreover, at least in the USA, no tier has been officially designated as special education, nor is it clear what legal protections apply to tiers higher than Tier 1. Movement Toward Full Inclusion Movement toward inclusion of all students with disabilities in general education (i.e., full inclusion) has become a world-wide movement (Anastasiou et al., 2018; Imray & Colley, 2017; Hornby, 2014; Kauffman & Anastasiou, 2016; Kauffman, Anastasiou et al., 2018; Kauffman, Hallahan et al., 2018). Some have used some form of Tiered education to further the idea of full inclusion. For example, Sailor (2009) used RTI in stating Sailor, “I recommend operating schoolwide RTI models without having any separate special education classrooms” (p. 123). Imray and Colley (2017), Hornby (2014), Kauffman, Hallahan et al. (2018), Kauffman, Anastasiou et al., in press; Kauffman, Felder, Ahrbeck, Badar, & Schneiders (in press), Kauffman, Ward, & Badar (2016) and others (e.g., Anastasiou, Di Nuovo, & Kauffman, 2015;

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 17 Simpson & Kauffman, 2007; Zigmond & Kloo, 2017) have noted the practical, ethical, and logical shortcomings of full inclusion. We believe that inclusion of students with disabilities in general education (partial inclusion) is a good and important idea, but full inclusion—no exceptions—as a single principle is not far from a fundamentalist approach (Warnock, 2010, pp. 36, 139), and can be detrimental to the learning needs of students with disabilities. General Conclusions For reasons we discussed above, it seems to us that naming and terms are necessary and nowadays can be used well, although they are sometimes misunderstood, misused, or abused. Special education, if it is to be viable and vibrant, must have its clear visibility, identity, borders, status, personnel, focus, budget, and authority. Advocates for change and reform seem to downgrade or undermine basic features and functions of special education that are inimical to its survival and effectiveness by castigating terms and urging that special education’s functions be subsumed by general education. The consequence is a blurring of special education’s identity (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010), the opposite of what we believe should be happening. A leading special educator in the USA told a group of project directors, “Resist restructuring that diminishes your special education identity” (Meyen, 1998, p. 11). The blurring of special education’s identity is especially troublesome because of the potential loss of individualized treatment, which may lead to a loss of advocacy of a dedicated workforce to special educational needs within schools, that is, the loss of special education teachers. This is what actually have been suggested by the UN CRPD Committee (CRPD Committee, 2016; see analysis of Anastasiou et al., 2018). One of the architects of IDEA, the late Fred Weintraub (2012) noted, special education seems to be losing the idea and feature of individualization. Part of the reason for this loss might be enthusiasm for tiers of education, none

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 18 of which has so far been clearly designated as special education. The danger for students with disabilities is that there will no longer be a clearly special education for their learning needs.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 19 References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5). Arlington, VA: Author. Anastasiou, D., Gregory, M., & Kauffman, J. M. (2018). Commentary on Article 24 of the CRPD: The right to education. In I. Bantekas, D. Anastasiou, & M. Stein (Eds.), Commentary on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (pp. XX – XX). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77, 367-384. Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J. M. (2012). Disability as cultural difference. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 139-149. doi: 10.1177/0741932510383163 Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The social model of disability: Dichotomy between impairment and disability. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 441-459. doi:10.1093/jmp/jht026. Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Di Nuovo, S. (2015). Inclusive education in Italy: Description and reflections on full inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 30, 429-443. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2015.1079033 Anastasiou, D., Kauffman, J. M., & Michail, D. (2016). Disability in multicultural theory: Conceptual and social justice issues. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27, 3-12. doi: 10.1177/1044207314558595 Blackburn, S. (2005). Truth: A guide. New York: Oxford University Press.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 20 Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1994). The social meaning of mental retardation: Two life stories: a reissued edition of "inside out" with a new postscript special education series. New York: Teachers College Press. Bunge, M. (2001). Philosophy in crisis. New York: Prometheus Books. Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary. New York: Prometheus Books. Bunge, M. (2017). Philosophy of science: From problem to theory (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. Engber, D. (2015, October 20). The strange case of Anna Stubblefield. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved February 6, 2016 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/magazine/the-strange-case-of-annastubblefield.html?_r=0 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301323. doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304 Gerber, M. M. (2017). A history of special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 3-15). New York: Taylor & Francis. Gliona, M. F., Gonzales, A. K., & Jacobson, E. S. (2005). Suggested changes in thinking about instructional environments and in the language of special education. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 21 Goodlad, J. I., & Lovitt, T. C. (Eds.). (1993). Integrating general and special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan. Hornby, G. (2014). Inclusive special education: Evidence-based practices for children with special needs and disabilities. New York, NY: Springer. Imray, P., & Colley, A. (2017). Inclusion is dead: Long live inclusion. New York: Routledge. Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (2016). Facilitated communication: The ultimate fad treatment. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 283-302). New York: Francis & Taylor. Kauffman, J. M. (1981). Introduction: Historical trends and contemporary issues in special education in the United States. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23, 256-278. doi: 10.1177/002246698902300303 Kauffman, J. M. (2013). Labeling and categorizing children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders in the USA: Current practices and conceptual problems. In T. Cole, H. Daniels, & J. Visser (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to emotional and behavioural difficulties (pp. 15-21). London: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., & Anastasiou, D. (2016). Educació especial: Reptes (Special education: Challenges). Reptes (Challenges), 1, 4-8. Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., & Hallenbeck, B. A. (2018). Becoming your own worst enemy: Converging paths. In C. Boyle, S. Mavropoulou, J. Anderson, & A. Page

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 22 (Eds.), Inclusive education: Global issues & controversies (pp. 000-000) Rotterdam, Netherlands: SENSE. Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Travers, T. C., & Wiley, A. L. (2016). Inclusive education moving forward. In J. P. Bakken & F. E. Obiakor, (Eds.), Advances in special education, Vol. 32—General and special education in an age of change: Roles of professionals involved (pp. 153-177). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Kauffman, J. M., Anastasiou, D., & Maag, J. W. (2017). Special education at the crossroad: An identity crisis and the need for a scientific reconstruction. Exceptionality, 25, 139-155. doi 10.1080/09362835.2016.1238380. Kauffman, J. M., Badar, J., & Wiley, A. L. (in press). RtI: Controversies and solutions. In P. C. Pullen & M. M. Kennedy (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention and multi-tiered systems of support. New York: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., Felder, M., Ahrbeck, B., Badar, J., & Schneiders, K. (in press). Inclusion of all students in general education? International appeal for a more temperate approach to inclusion, Journal of International Special Needs Education, 00, 00-00 Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1993). Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special education. In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 73-102). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2018). Special education: What it is and why we need it (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006). Children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: A history of their education. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 23 Kauffman, J. M., & Sasso, G. M. (2006). Toward ending cultural and cognitive relativism in special education. Exceptionality, 14, 65-90. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1402_2 Kauffman, J. M., Ward, D. M., & Badar, J. (2016). The delusion of full inclusion. In R. M. Foxx & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for autism and intellectual disabilities (2nd ed.) (pp. 71-86). New York: Taylor & Francis. Kirk, S. A. (1962). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Petersen, A. J. (2015). At the end of intellectual disability. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 1-28. doi: 10.17763/haer.85.1.j260u3gv2402v576 Klotz, J. (2004) Sociocultural study of intellectual disability: Moving beyond labelling and social constructionist perspectives. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 93–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00285.x Lloyd, J. W., Repp, A. C., & Singh, N. N. (Eds.). (1991). The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and methods. Dekalb, IL: Sycamore. Martin, E. W. (2017, October 5). Dyslexia v. Learning Disability. Email post to spedpro, a special education listserv. Medin, D. L. Ross, B. H., & Markman, A. B. (2005). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Meyen, E. (1998, July). Preparing leadership personnel for an increasingly diverse world: From a higher education perspective. Paper presented at the OSEP/CEC Leadership Training Project Directors Conference, Washington, DC. Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated communication since 1995: A review of published studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 287–313.

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 24 Mostert, M. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Kavale, K. A. (2003). Truth and consequences. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 333-347. Mostert, M. P., Kavale, K. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (Eds.). (2008). Challenging the refusal of reasoning in special education. Denver, CO: Love. Neiman, S. (2008). Moral clarity: A guide for grown-up idealists. New York: Harcourt. Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 178–193. doi: 10.1177/002246690103400401 Sasso, G. M. (2007). Science and reason in special education: The legacy of Derrida and Foucault. In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 143–167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Seguin, E. O. (1866). Idiocy and its treatment by the physiological method. New York: W. Wood. Schalock, R. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L.…& Yeager, M. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Simpson, R. L., & Kauffman, J. M. (2007). Inclusão de alunos deficientes em salas de aula regulares (Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education). In J. M. Kauffman & J. A. Lopes (Eds.), Pode a educação especial deixar de ser especial? (pp. 167-190). Braga, Portugal: Psiquilíbrios EdiçÕes. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1991). A rational for integration and restructuring: A synopsis. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative:

NAMING AND MAINTAINING 25 Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 225-239). Sycamore, IL: Sycarmore. Scheerenberger, R. C. (1983). A history of mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Travers, J. C., Tincani, M. J., & Lang, R. (2014). Facilitated communication denies people with disabilities their voice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3) 195 –202. doi:10.1177/15407969145567 UN CRPD Committee (2016). General Comment No. 4. UN Doc CRPD/C/GC/4. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD /C/GC/4&Lang=en Warnock, M. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. In Lorella Terzi (ed.), Special educational needs: A new look (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. Weintraub, F. J. (2012). A half century of special education: What we have achieved and the challenges we face. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 50-53. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Critical issues in special education (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Zigmond, N., & Kloo, (2011). General and special education are (and should be) different. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 160-172). New York: Taylor & Francis.