point of view the power of policy: premise and product

JADARA JADARA

Volume 30 Number 1 Article 7

October 2019

Point of View the Power of Policy: Premise and Product Point of View the Power of Policy: Premise and Product

William J. A. Marshall none

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Marshall, W. J. (2019). Point of View the Power of Policy: Premise and Product. JADARA, 30(1). Retrieved from https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/vol30/iss1/7

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/vol30

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/vol30/iss1

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/vol30/iss1/7

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara?utm_source=repository.wcsu.edu%2Fjadara%2Fvol30%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://repository.wcsu.edu/jadara/vol30/iss1/7?utm_source=repository.wcsu.edu%2Fjadara%2Fvol30%2Fiss1%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Point of ViewThe Power of Policy:Premise and Product

By: William J. A. Marshall

This section provides aforum for exchange and reasonableideas on all sides of an issue in thearea of deafness. The opinionsexpressed in this article, and othersthat appear in Point of View, arethose of the authors and should not

be considered the position ofADARA.

Introduction

To discuss the power ofpolicy is to know the policy ofpower. And the policy of power isthis:

"First hold on to it;

second, expand it."(Machiavelli, 16thCentury)Educational leaders

administering their positions ofdecision and educational

policymakers wielding theirpositions of influence would dowell to revisit the premises uponwhich their power is predicated.Why? Because their power definesthe direction of our schools.

Because their power affects thededication of our teachers. And

because their power frames thedestiny of our students. Suchpower is played out in itspedestrian sense wheneverpolicymakers give expression to thevalue system of community beliefsthat they assume a giveneducational policy platform reflects;whenever legislators spell out thescope-and-scale of a policy in termsof the people to whom it will reach

out; whenever educators convinceteachers and students to carry outthe policy for the purpose ofreforming some aspect ofinstruction and learning; andwhenever evaluators from the

research community tell all theseplayers whether what they assume tobe happening at the policy-directivelevel is actually happening at theclassroom-and-beyond level. Thefour P's of policy defined byPalmer, Redfern and Smith (1994)specify: 1. the philosophy of whythe schools believe they mustrespect the individual needs of theirstudents; 2. the principles of howthe schools intend to put thisphilosophy into practice byinvolving teachers and parents; 3.the procedures by which theschools will achieve such intentthrough the reallocation ofresources and the reassignment ofresponsibility; and, 4. theperformance outcomes by whichthe effectiveness of these policyinitiatives can be measured.

Policies are organictestaments of the creative

community of forces that shapedthem, whether locally or nationally.In the field of special education, thecross-hairs of every politicalgunsight are currently being aimedat the place wherein special schoolservices are to be delivered. We

will, in all likelihood, be living-outthe remaining years of the lastdecade of this century in a veritableVan de Graaff Generator of changewhose current flashes white hot

between the forces for inclusion

within the mainstream and the

forces for extruded placementwithin the sidestream. So heated is

this emotional debate that

Education Secretary Richard Riley(Hoff, 1995)-addressing theFebruary 1995 convention of theAmerican Association of School

Administrators-pleaded:"We need to lower our

voices and listen to

each other. Our

rhetoric has been much

too strident...much too

condemning."Nor has the debate been

limited to America! Scores of

nations are moving in the directionof including disabled learners intothe regular classroom (Organizationfor Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, 1995). OCED is a21-member group of market-economy nations comprising NorthAmerica, Western Europe, Japan,and the Southern Hemisphere. Thereport showcased Canada's NewBrunswick province which-havingreplaced its two special educationschools in the early '80s-developedpublic schools capable of providingan array of special support servicesfor their regular classroom teachershaving disability learners. Furtherexamples abound from Iceland,Norway, and Italy. Nationsidentified, however, as relying mostheavily on the continuation ofspecial schools include Austria,Belgium, Germany, and theNetherlands. No mention is made

of Israel and little is mentioned of

the United States. Though the

JADARA 28 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

1

Marshall: Point of View the Power of Policy: Premise and Product

Published by WestCollections: digitalcommons@wcsu, 1996

THE POWER OF POLICY

OECD report acknowledges thatthe struggle being witnessed withinthe U.S. in trying to blend specialeducation into regular education ismost pronounced, it dismissed theproblem out-of-hand as being nomore than a case of insufficient

awareness, inadequate training, anda skewed distribution of resources!

Policymakers and educators-though balancing the interests ofthe informed public against theaccumulated evidence of validated

processional practice-must beginleading from their moral center.They must temper theirtemptations of resorting to politicalexpediency. While they must keepan ear-to-the-rail of public opinion,they must also resist the urge tojump onto bandwagons heraldingthe latest fad du jour of popularityand political-correctness. AsGerber (1994) so trenchantlyobserved:

"Rather than

becoming a point ofdeparture for sensitiveand thoughtful leaders^the polls have becomea point of no returnthat over- shadows the

moral imperative fortrue leadership."The field of special

education invites its leaders to come

forth to listen and to interpret thesometimes incoherent messages thatwill ultimately be forged intopolicies; policies that will ofnecessity become greater than thesum of the collective consciousness

that shaped them. This will comeabout only if our educationdecision-makers show a willingnessto lead from the moral centers of

their hearts and to administer from

the dispassionate centers of theirprofessional judgments. The issues,trends, and policy platforms raisedin this paper may revive thesehearts and galvanize these minds toaction.

Coming to Terms with the Terms

"Does thoughtinfluence language orlanguage influencethought?" (Vygotskiiy1962)

Equity/Excellence

Philosophical conundrumsaside, thought and language arekeys to changing people'sperceptions. Take, for example,two of the more popularbuzzwords of the inclusion and

educational reform literature-equityand excellence. Federal policyplatforms in the early post-Sputnikdays of education reform espousedequity of access along with itsmore liberal-leaning companionterms of accessihilityy welfare,regulation, federal intervention anddissemination as being thecenterpieces of the Great Society'spolitical initiatives. Keeping inmind that shifts in language reflectconcomitant shifts in thought, wemust realize that it is one thing topush for educational excellence bymeasuring the quantum changes ofthose who are already achieving,but quite another thing to open upequitable opportunities of access forstudents who are not being givencomparable opportunities forachieving. Close down access tosuch educational opportunities for amarginalized group and you robthem of their ticket to competitiveemployment, economicadvancement, and self-improvement.

Federal policy platforms oflate, however, have prominentlypromulgated the conservative ethosof excellence; a term connotingsuch notions of "standards,""performance," and "competition."The current federal practice topublish state-by-state comparisonstatistics of education achievement

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 29 JADARA

2

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

scores for the ostensible reason of

fomenting greater effort at reformhas all but bankrupted the moralityof purpose for teaching. In thechilling practicality of theMachiavellian scheme of reality, theends justify the means so teach-to-the-test! The equally conservativeterminology trailing in the policywake of " excellence

economic sufficiency, deregulation,states' initiatives, and exhortation-isentirely in keeping with VicePresident Gore's "simplifiedgovernment" movement and HouseSpeaker Gingrich's "balance thebudget in-seven-years" movementwith its schooldunches-and-5zg-fiir^/-be-damned attitude. In all fairness,however, Clark and Astuto (1990)cautioned that conservatism, per se,does not always imply a drasticcurtailment of federal presence atthe education policy level. Theydocumented many instances ofcongressional coalitions composedof conservatives and liberals under

both Democratic and Republicanadministrations and Congresseswho have sustained federal

categorical aid to education.The policy implications that

flow from these terminologicaldifferences are not the idle

speculations of wordsmiths. Thepolicy implications flowing fromyesterday's equity platforms andfrom today's excellence rhetoric arepronounced. The accumulated 20-year-plus flotsam that this river ofthought has deposited on thepresent shores of special educationin general and deaf education inparticular has contributedenormously to today's inclusion-debate morass within educational

reform. Deaf children, forexample, are floundering in thedeep waters of least restrictivemainstream placements whilesimultaneously arguing their rights-of-access to the sidestream

placements capable of

accommodating their unique needs.Choosing to ignore the ins-and-outsof the present policy climateengulfing the 1995 reauthorizationof the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (PL 101-476) istantamount to consigning an entiregeneration of deaf children to theslipstream of missing out on theopportunities of the proverbialGreat American Dream. It, thus,behooves us to know what is at

stake.

The consentaneous politicaland economic realities shapingfederal policy initiatives ineducation force us to acknowledgehow malleable the politicalmembrane is in terms of: a. "Does

public opinion support maintainingfederal involvement in education?,"b. "Does public opinion supportthe direction in which federal

policy directives are headed in thefield of special education?,"c. "Does public opinion support theneed for change in the federalregulatory picture?," d. "Willeducation policymakers be able torestore to the schools the benefits

of the accumulated reforms form

the 5p^^ni^-sparked '60s to thewatershed '90s?," and e. "Willpolicymakers and leaders in specialeducation be able and willing toprevent any erosion on the gains toincrease access points to those whowere heretofore denied such

accessibility?" {cf. Mitchell &Goertz, 1990).

Reform/Restructuring

Leaders-unlike managerswho plan, organize, and controlresources-establish policy climatesthat motivate a community ofstakeholders committed to the

teaching/learning process. The acidtest of any leader is the ability tocreate an attitude of teamness

within such an assembly ofstakeholders. Leaders have

alchemy. Leaders have no need toaffix blame for failures because theyprize the lessons that failure teach.This encourages their teammembers to push the envelope ofrisk-taking and to do so within afail-safe atmosphere. Leaders have aknack for getting people out oftheir walled-in boxes into their

malleable-membraned bubbles

wherein territoriality gives way tosharing and caring. Bubbles capturethe sense of the "soft" thoughtstructures that conjure up thenotions of right-brain brainstorming,possibilities, creativity, intuitiveheart-over-head, delegatedresponsibility and authority fordecisions, visions, values, missions,directions, and frameworks. Boxes,on the other hand, capture thecontrapuntal companion notions of"hard" left-brain critiquing,inevitabilities, objectivity, rationalhead-over-heart, control of top-downdecision making, forecasts, principles,strategies, and clockworks {cf. Hurst,1984). Such metaphors helpsimplify the complexities of whatwe are trying to explain when itcomes to reform/restructuring.

Reform is a word, not asentence! Reform is a Rohrschach

test-beckoning us to read into theblot whatever opinions we alreadyhad about it. Reform is the

congregation listening to a Sundaymorning sermon about lax parentsand their undisciplined teens andknowing full-well the pastor isreferring to the others sittingnearby. The reform literature readsin a language rippling with a slewof "now/then," "up-to-date/out-of-date," "better than/worse than"contrapuntals. Consider thissampling of distilled gleanings fromthe literature in general and specialeducation, representative of whichwe find Fuchs and Fuchs (1995);Kauffmann and Hallahan (1995);Sailor, Gee, and Karasoff (1992);

JADARA 30 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

3



THE POWER OF POLICY

Sage and Burello (1994); and Lipp(1992).

This massive and recent

literature converges on such ever-recurring reform themes as thefollowing:• locus of control

- decentralization vs.

centralization;- teacher empowerment vs.

administrative aggrandizement;- the school's responsibility tothe community vs. theschool's accountability tofunding sources;

- applying resources vs.pressures

- monitoring of outcomes vs.managing of processes.

• locus of instruction- learner needs model vs.

medical model of deviance;- integration of services vs.

segregation of students;- intervention-based assessment

vs. remedial-based assessment;- absorption of all services into

regular education vs. parallelsystem of special and regulareducation;

- no labeling vs. categorization;- collaboration vs. competition;- seamless-webbed deliverysystems vs. cascade of services.

• locus of curriculum andmethodology- flexibly determined at site vs.uniformly controlled at systemlevel;

- learner centered vs.

instructional methodologycentered;

- diversity of student learningpace/style vs. conformity toteacher-preferred vectors ofinstruction;

- zero reject promote-to masteryvs. competition for grades;

- retention of factual material

vs. development of reasoningfaculties and core values.

Restructuring-the mostcommon of the proposed reformstrategies-is like its ink-blotcounterpart: elusive! As an entryinto the educational lexicon, itmeans everything and nothingsimultaneously. As an operationalterm in educational research, theliterature remains silent-showingscant agreement as to what arestructured school is supposed tolook like. And as a term used

interchangeably with reform^ itcomes out as a partially-well butequally-bad episode of a keeping-up-with-the-Jones' in the schooldistrict leadership derby. Whateverits pedagogical significance,restructuring-within its reformcontext-is far more than realigningwalls and buildings, curricularprograms and instructionalapproaches, or even reportingrelationships and teacherempowerment {cf Timar, 1990).School restructuring-far from beingan accretion of changes that replacean older set of rituals with a newer

set-is not something that can belegislated from afar, nor is itsomething that can be dictated tooccur from above in one-fell-

managerial swoop. Instead,restructuring is but a spoke in thereform umbrella. Reform in

education is accumulative bynature: building on past successesand thriving within a policy climateembracing diversity of input fromthe community of stakeholders.Shorn of its accumulative-ness,reform reduces to unchecked

incrementalism.

Restructuring flows fromreform; it does not define reform.Reforms flow from policyplatforms which themselves haveemerged from the collectiveopinions of the profession andpublic alike. Throughout the 20-plus year history of the GallupPoll, the public has indicated agenuine willingness to support

innovations improvingteaching/learning. Results of pollsinfluence but do not determine

educational policy. Though nodirect cause/effect relationshipshave ever been demonstrated

between the two, a healthycorrelation exists, nonetheless,between poll findings and reforminitiatives. Marcus and Stickney(1990) noted that with the mediasaturation attending the release of Anation at risk on April 26, 1983, thesubsequently released Gallup Pollin the middle of May 1983 reportedthe sharpest, most precipitousdecline in the public's ratings ofeducation since the start of the

polling in 1969. Twelve monthslater, the U.S. Office of Education(1984) released A nation responds:Recent efforts to improve education^chronicling the putative reformefforts put in place in the shortspace of one year. Predictably, theapplause meter for the 1984 Gallupreturns swung upwards in thepublic's evaluation of education.

There are enormous lessons

to be learned here for the specialeducation community ofstakeholders. Firsts results of pollsprovide the compass points andminefield markers of where to goand where not to go. When thepractices of the educationprofession and the opinions andsentiments of the public are inreasonable synchrony, then conflictwith abate among the "adults" anddividends will be reaped among the"students." Second^ wheneducational practices are atloggerheads with public/parentalexpectations, then somecommunity-inspired consciousness-raising sets the stage for a newagenda of reform. Schooladministrators and policymakers inspecial education have generallyfailed to grasp the differencebetween public opinion and publicsentiment. Lukacs (1993) explained

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 31 JADARA

4

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

public opinion as being what youspout off to all comers near and far,especially to the pollster, aboutwhat you think on a given issue.As a case in point, this is not toounlike Mrs. Gingrich sharing heropinions of Mrs. Clinton to newscorrespondent Connie Chung.Public sentiment^ however,embodies a private set of beliefs andbiases that are not generally freelyshared for fear of being criticized orembarrassed. As another case in

point, improving education is apolitically correct and patrioticopinion to express; yet, in theprivacy of the voting booth, yousentiment for approving a schoolbond issue may be something elseagain. The lesson at work herefrom understanding the power ofthe poll is this: The polls haveshown (1) that the public admits toits own ignorance about theschools, (2) that the public wantsmore information about what

educators are doing in the schools,and (3) that the more aware thepublic is of what the schools aredoing to improve teaching andlearning, the more respect andconfidence the public expresses ineducation. And because respect isthe lingua franca of authority, theneducators need to cultivate the

public's trust before they canexpect to be given the license formore reforms.

Are we doing enough inspecial education and deafeducation? The National Council

on Disability testified during theIDEA reauthorization hearings heldduring May 1995 before theSenate's Disability PolicySubcommittee showing (1) thatparents of disabled learners in manyparts of the country feel largely leftout of the special education process,(2) that parents arrive at school todesign their child's individualizededucation plan only to be greetedby school officials with a finished

plan, and (3) thefamily/school/communitypartnerships are not working likethey are said to be working.During these same hearings, thenational president of Children withAttention Deficit Disorders testified

that "without sustained and intenseparental self-education andinvolvement, the public schoolswould give IDEA short shrift"(Briand, 1995a, p. 03).

And this brings us to thethird and final lesson available for

special educators, viz, thatleadership need not always be areflection of what the people wantbut can instead become an

opportunity for getting the peopleto a place where they have not yetbeen. Influence is a two-way streetand leaders are just as capable ofsetting the trends as they are infollowing the trends. The polls inthe mid-'80s registered strongopinions against the reforminitiatives of lengthening the schoolday and lengthening the schoolyear. To their credit, educatorsexercised their prerogatives asprofessionals and proceeded withimplementing these initiatives,anyway, using the media to explainwhy they were doing what theywere doing and how they weregoing about doing it. The publiccame around and supported thereform initiative (Elam & Stickney1990).

Are we doing enough inspecial education and deafeducation? What the National

Council on Disability (1995)reported in May, the results oftestimony culled from a ten-site setof hearings from around the nationon reauthorization for IDEA did

the leaders in deafness weigh in?When this self-same reportsynthesized the results of the 400-plus testimonies into a dozen pagesand further collapsed them into aset of "Six Basic Principles of

Support" (pp. 216-217), were any ofthe 52 well-articulated

recommendations emanating fromthe Congressionally-appointedCommission on the Education of

the Deaf (Bowie, 1991) in evidence?Are we doing enough to harnessthe power of public opinion pollingto influence our legislators? Whenthe National Governors Association

sends the House Speaker a three-page letter seeking changes in IDEAas it is presently conceived and goesfurther by suggesting that theHouse institute a once-a-month

corrections day to facilitate theamendment process of onerouslegislation, where were our leaders?It took a legislative staff member ofRep. Major Owens' office toremonstrate: "Holding a 'correctionsday' for disability law isoutrageous,„it is ridiculous, given thefact that floor debate on correctionsday is limited to 30 minutes; ,„itgives short shrift to children protectedby IDEA " (Briand, 1995b).

Are we doing enough? Orare we playing out an early-in-the-century line from Gertrude Steinabout Oakland, California, cited byElmore (1990): "When you getthere, is there any there, there?"When the NCD (1995) closed offits conclusive report on IDEAreauthorization with the comment

that "Intensive oversight byCongress,.ds especially warranted dueto the risk that school restructuringwill proceed without specialeducation constituents beingsubstantially involved,resulting inschool norms,..that reduce

opportunities for students withdisabilities to receive education in the

least restrictive environment of theirneighborhood's schools" (p. 246;emphasis added), then we are introuble and floundering in themidst of a leadership vacuum.Now is the time to force the majorpolicy line question in the debateover restructuring and reform.

JADARA 32 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

5



THE POWER OF POLICY

To wit: urging the regulatoryplayers to counterbalance the leastrestrictive environment concept witha greater emphasis on appropriatenesswhen dealing with the unique needsof deaf children {cf Bo we, 1991).Now is the time to stand up and becounted. Now is the time to ask

more WHY and less HOW. Now

is the time to ask what exactly isour reform agenda in deafeducation? If we do now, how willwe know when we arrive at the

mythical destination of there^ thatwe have even completed theagenda?

Inclusion and Its Allusions to

Our Critical Condition

"Fanatics have

answers^ not questions;certainties^ not

hesitations," (ElieWiesel 1992)In Greek, muthos means

wordy speech, the thing spoken, thetale told. In English, it meansmyth. Whether or not a particularmyth corresponds to scientific factis quite immaterial. What makes amyth important is how itinfluences perceptions. A myth,according to Macpherson (1994a),"supports existing socialstructure,„programs the attitudes ofindividuals and groups,„encouragesuncritical acceptance of theestablished norms,,," Myths createfacts out of the values theypropound. Myths make peoplebusy but blind-boxing people in asprisoners of their own traditions.People, by failing to recognize theirown myths as being myths, tend toconsider all other myths false.Thus, myths contribute mightily tothe way people see facts. For thisvery reason, myths must not bedismissed disparagingly. They mustbe labeled for what they are andnot confused with the facts that

they pretend to be. Any intelligent

debate-on so electric a reform issue

as incorporating the branch that isspecial education into the trunkthat is regular education byincluding all disability learners inthe regular classroom-demands noless an approach from our leaders,our policymakers, and ourlegislators.

Operations within ourschools reflect the myths operatingoutside our schools. During the'60s when the current reform era

began in earnest, concern about thedis-enfranchisement of marginalizedgroups within American societyprompted a soul-searchingquestioning of such basic Americanvalues as~opportunity, or its lackthereof; equality, or its lack thereof;and, accessibility, or its denialthereto {cf, Meenaghan & Kilty,1994). During the '70s, the concernof education for the newlyenfranchised members of the body-politic focused on how and what toteach disadvantaged learners anddisability learners. During the '80s,the social questioning of theprevious decades gave way on thefederal front to a politicalconservatism emphasizingaccountability. This forced thedeliverer of services to show the

deliverer of funds that what was

being done was in fact in line withthe expectations, values, and normsof the funding body, thereby givingnew meaning to the proverbialGolden Rule: "They who own thegold, rule," And on the educationfront, a tectonic plate shift wasstarting to occur by focusing onwhere such services were to be

provided. Absent scientificvalidation, the prevailing mythcentered on the assumption that thegeneral education mainstream wassupposed to influence positively thelearning and social integration of allstudents {cf. Sailor, Gee & Karasoff,1993). Now, during the '90s, theresultant fissures on the education

landscape force us to focus on whodetermines the how, what, andwhere. In deaf education, theNational Association of State

Directors of Special Educationpublished a practical navigationguide around these faultlines thatholds some promise, some light,some hope (Baker-Hawkins &Easterbrooks, 1994). Theremainder of this paper(a) examines the shoals that gaverise to this critical condition

confronting special education-theRegular Education Initiative, and(b) examines the vorticescontributing to deaf education'sunfinished agenda within the fast-moving policy-manufacturingstream of today's storm-watchclimate.

Regular Education Initiative

When all but two of the 44

issues put forth in NASDSE's(1994) Educational service guidelinesfor deaf and hard-of hearing studentsare stated in the subjunctive moodcondition of "should," we areapprised of a significant featureprevalent in the reform literature.To wit, the use of action verbs inthe subjunctive. Sage and Burrello(1994)-offering as they do, one ofthe more state-of-the-art

pronouncements of reform posturesin special education-present anextensive tabular summary (pp. 5-7)contrasting an array of what-is-nowtype of conditions with a series ofwhat-should-be conditions in specialeducation. A simple examplesuffices. In the prevailing ethos ofthe current what is reality, adistinct flavor of accountabilityprevails-the measuring up totargets, scores and standards;whereas in the future-oriented what

should be scheme of things thisphilosophically unpalatable notionof power differentials suggested by

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 33 JADARA

6

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

the term accountability gives way tothe more collegial and productivenotion of responsibility. Aresponsibility for in lieu of anaccountability to addresses theprospect of coalition building andthe pushing down of decision levelsto those closest to the arena of

action {cf Houston, 1988; Sizer,1993). Responsibility thus speaks toa professional's internal locus ofmotivation~the measuring up to thevalues and goals of the communityand the expectations of learning bythe parents; whereas accountabilityspeaks to an external locus ofmotivation of compliance sanscommitment.

A brief digression to theregular education front helps toadjust this particular accountability/responsibility contrast. Macpherson(1994b)-acknowledging howpolitically incorrect an issue thismatter of accountability can bewithin the current reform climate,a climate that emphasizescooperative learning, collaborativeplanning, teacher empowerment,and participative policymaking-suggested that we not view thismatter as an "either/or"

proposition. Instead, heemphasized a perspective that caststhe matter into the light of thetwin reform themes of (a) themarketization of education and

(b) the redefinition of the roles ofeducational stakeholders. The

move toward privitization, or therunning of schools as a business,brought to bear the market forcesof outcome-based measures of

student and school performance.This in turn brought with it therealization that a good deal ofeducational expenditure could wellbe transferred to a more

accountable private sector. Buthere, the pall of another mentalitytakes root. First, if thestakeholders adopt what is knownas a "technical perspective" towards

education, then the schools will beviewed as capable of improvingteaching/learning only on the basisof validated research findings.Accountability, within this context,becomes accomplished through theclear statement of goals and theoperational statement of measuresof performance. Second, if thestakeholders adopt a "clientperspective," wherein schoolimprovement is pegged on thedegree of responsiveness tocommunity standards ofexpectations, then consumerismbecomes the rallying point forchange. The electorate, the market,and the management of the schoolsbecome the levers of accountability.Finally, we have the situationwhereby the stakeholders adopt a"professional perspective." Thissuggests that improvement happenswhen school administrators and

classroom teachers are given greateropportunity to develop theirprofessional skills, to exercise theirprofessional judgments, and to havea level of decision-making authoritycommensurate with their levels of

assigned responsibility.Accountability now becomes afunction 1) of the occupationalconditions featuring autonomy,respect, and resource allocation, and2) of de-constructing/re-constructing the scaffolding ofreporting relationships,collaborative planning teams, andcooperative teaching schemes.

This brilliant analysis byMacpherson provides specialeducators with some much needed

context. Reforms need not be

based exclusively on validatedresearch findings. Reforms neednot be based exclusively on theemissions of the electorate. And,reforms need not be based

exclusively on the dismantling ofhierarchical structures. Absent

such musings, we stand in danger ofallowing, as Kerr (cf. 1990, pp. 30-

35) pointed out, "the emergence of ajumbled slate of reforms^ aimed at analready overly-bureaucratic system,proposing to heal the patient byadministering more of what made thepatient ill in the first place."Collectively, our profession ofeducators and special educators iscapable of a schooling that educates.And we will capitalize on thatcapability only when we getstraight who has what authorityand what responsibility for theschools.

The U.S. Department ofEducation's Office of SpecialEducation Programs convened aconference on technical assistance

for special educators in January -1994 (Office of Special EducationPrograms, 1994) that understoodsuch collective capabilities.Warning against a ready-aim-firementality, the conferenceproceedings urged a set of buoymarkers that must guide ourreforms. First: policymaking mustbe predicated on an examination ofwhat is needed by whom andwhen. This helps to define theproblem. And second: problemsdon't stand still in specialeducation. They have an ornerycapacity to grow worse over time.They also have an ornery capacityto have money thrown at themwith the expectation that they willjust go away. So it becomesincumbent upon the leadershipwhenever a policy response isdefined, to continue to monitor theproblem by asking- in facthave we done?\ "What have welearned from what we have done?"and "What remains to be done"-else

failure is being courted. Attemptsto avert such failure are amply inevidence. One such being theefforts of Project Forum (NASDSE,1994) which have been pepperingthe profession of special educatorswith accountability questions ofthis ilk. The national assemblies

JADARA 34 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

7



THE POWER OF POLICY

hosted by the Project have resultedthus far with the charges a) to getregular educators and specialeducators together to identify thecomponents of programeffectiveness, b) to gain consensuson how to measure effectiveness byincluding members of the disabilitycommunity in this definitionprocess, and c) to sell this measureof consensus on effectiveness

convincingly to the stakeholders.As for the importance ofstakeholders, consider the findingsof Hodapp (1995) who, using the1988 National Education

Longitudinal Study data base, foundthat educational expectations amongparents of sensory disabilitystudents-deaf-were significantlyhigher than for parents of otherstudents. And this brings us to theclassic instance of a problem that isnot standing still-the legislationspawned by Regular EducationInitiatives (REI), Characterizationsas to what constitutes REI are as

multitudinous as the writers

weighing-in on the matter. At itsbarest, the characterology-condensed from the writings ofJenkins & Pious (1991) and Fuchs& Fuchs (1991)--has included thefollowing operating norms: (1) thelocal school administers the service

delivery system to the disabilitieslearner; (2) the support system forthe disabilities learner must be in

place for use by the regularclassroom teacher; and (3) theinstructional process must be apersonalized, curriculum-referencedand collaborative effort between

regular education and specialeducation support services. Thesenorms find placement along aspectrum that seesaws a) from theradical "total inclusion" end that

calls for the total dismantling of thespecial education system as we nowknow it, b) to a close-to-the-fulcrum centrist position calling forthe availability of a selective

mainstreaming option along withthe retaining of the parallel systemof special education services, andc) to the highly conservative "do-no-harm" end of the balance beam

that calls for the least number of

changes to the present system.As Braaten, Kauffman,

Braaten, Polsgrove and Nelson(1988, p. 21) concluded from theirextensive case law citations, "becausewe are dealing with decisions thataffect the lives of other people'schildreny the burden of proof shouldlie with the advocates of the REIplatform demonstrating that parentswould indeed realize better

educational benefits for their childrenthan through the present parallelsystem of special education," Thus,the burden of the proof lies withthose who want to radicallydismantle the present system ofspecial education by showing apriori that regular education couldin effect be more resource efficient

and more instructionally effectivethan the system of services it seeksto replace. McCrone (1994), citinga 1993 National Council on

Disability study, reported that-in asampling population including over13,000 disability learners-over half(55%) of the parents had registereddissatisfaction with the slate of

services their children were

receiving in regular classplacements. This finding is notsurprising given what Braaten et al.(1988, p 24) noted: "Teachers whouse effective instructional procedureswere less tolerant of students'behavioral excesses..,expressing adecreased willingness to accept suchstudents within their classrooms."

Apparently, the attitudes ofteachers are not too dissimilar to

that of parents! McCarty (1993), incanvassing the perceptions of over40 public school teachers in Ohio,documented the following: (1) 63%of the teachers decried as an out-

and-out myth that special educators

would become aids to regulareducators; and (2) 71% of theteachers pegged the success ofinclusion on the huge assumptionsof a regular educator's attitude andwillingness to collaborate.

Are we doing enough indeaf education to make these

messages heard? For example,when the present continuum ofservices replaced the earlier cascadeof services model-popular duringthe Dunn (1968) and Deno (1970)era of special education reform-thenotion implicit in accepting varyingdegrees of restrictiveness ofplacement brought with it thepolicy implication of legitimizingan extruded placement possibility.Aside from this thinking beingsupported, in the set of COED(Bowe, 1991) recommendations, areour leaders making this logicexplicit in the canvass of testimonyfor IDEA reauthorization? The

Dunn and Deno positions of 25years ago heavily influenced thedirection of REI-type legislativeinitiatives by suggesting that insteadof trying to fix the disabilitieslearner we should instead focus on

correcting the deficiencies of theentire educational system. Will(1986), as Assistant Secretary forSpecial Education, reflected thisinfluence-effect when she

pronounced a decade ago thatbecause the philosophy of "pull-out" or extruded placementprograms was fundamentallyflawed, then the "...poorperformance of disabled learners wasdue to the deficiencies existing in theenvironment of the regularclassroom." So the race to place-thedecision of where the services were

to be delivered-was on and

continues to be on without let-up.As recent evidence of this Zeitgeist^Snell (1993) reported that specialeducation continues to be viewed

pejoratively as "...a place wherestudents who are different are sent to

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 35 JADARA

8

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

be treated by experts„.in much thesame manner as accident victims are

sent for treatment by experts in ahospital emergency room" (p. 176).Advocates of inclusion offer IDEA

as the alternative model "wherein

special educators collaborate withregular educators in a support role toeducate all children " and offer Goals

2000: Educate America Act (PL 103-227) as the "patriotic" justificationfor this inclusion model.

Pearpoint and Forest (1992)pandered to the sound-bit mentalityof the six o'clock news bybandying about such snippets as:"Return to the hasics.,.the ABC's ofreform-acceptance, belonging,community," "Bring back the 3 R's-reading, 'riting, relationships"(p. xvi). They also viewedinclusion as being more than amethod, philosophy, or researchagenda. Like more of the lobby atthe far end of that REX seesaw,inclusion is viewed as a way oflife,..a better way to live; awelcoming back of the stranger byproviding quality education andequity of services for all students.Inclusion is but a step in thedirection of the reform goal ofintegration. Whereas inclusionimplies shutting the door aftersomeone has entered the room,integration implies belonging-nessand restoring of wholeness (Idol,1994) {cf. Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff,1992) . The "seamless web ofservices" upon which suchintegration is predicted istantamount to the "wraparound"services the Office of SpecialEducation Programs recognizes asbeing equally applicable to bothspecial and non-special learners inthe mainstream {cf. Hehir, 1994).Though much more can be saidabout the stance of inclusion, thosewho are willing to exert leadershipin the legislative advocacy arenawould do well to consider accessingthe following source materials.

First, the most significant source oftestimony armamentarium comesfrom the The illusion of fullinclusion: A comprehensive critiqueof a current special educationbandwagon-zn 18-chapter collectionof viewpoints edited by Kauffmanand Hallahan (1995). Thisdefinitive work also contains an

appendiced collection of positionstatements on inclusion from 13

national organizations. The longestsuch position-pp. 322 to 328-beingcontributed by Consumer ActionNetwork of, by and for DeafAmericans. And second, acompanion source-set offering ofa) an annotated bibliography oninclusion by Moore and Carter(1994), and b) a set of 18 nationalorganization position-statementanalyses on inclusion by Catlettand Osher (1994). Fuchs and Fuchs(1995) have it right: Specialeducation has big problems...not theleast of which is the re-defining of itsrelationship with general education"(p. 234). Are we doing enough toinfluence these fluctuations in the

balance beam of professionalopinion?

An Unfinished Century, anUnfinished Agenda

"No one is more deafthan those who refuseto listen." (JesseJackson)The intent of REI-type

legislation is to decrease theputative societal stigma beingattached to disability by promotinginclusion within the mainstream.

The assumptions implicitly at workstem from the disreputable "medicalmodel perspective," wherein aperceived "abnormality" iscauterized to become a perceivedversion of "normalcy." The neteffect of both this thinking and itsconsequent legislation has been, infact, just the opposite. The distance

between both students and

professionals within the parallelsystems of education hasdramatically increased (Skrtic,1991). The current political trendof increasing federal disengagementfrom the general education policylevel may inevitably be felt inspecial education. Though theprospect of such control at the locallevel holds some promise, thequestion of equity and the gainsalready realized by the marginalizedcommunities of the nation may beup for grabs. In this fiscallyfraught climate, social andeducational reforms may be dictatedby matters economic, thussuggesting that at the local leveltriage-a system of allocating thebest of limited resources to those

capable of benefiting from themmost-may emerge as the system ofchoice. The forces of budgetaryretrenchment are naturally going tobe more acutely felt at the locallevel of "block funding" that at thefederal level of formulated funding.Performing triage in school reformentails informed judgment. If suchjudgment is not based on eithervalid needs assessment analyses, oroutcomes-based evaluation schemas,then the policy of resourceallocation may instead become thedefault choice of picking the mostpolitically expedient option athand.

The 1987 Guidelines foreffective cooperation between publicand private schools in meeting legaland professional responsibilities forthe education of children withdisabilities (National Association ofPrivate Schools for ExceptionalChildren, 1987) said as much whenthe NAPSEC governing board putout the call for an inventive brand

of pragmatism at the policy leveland for a coalition-building brandof leadership at the schooladministration level. NAPSEC

strenuously advocated a mid-stream

JADARA 36 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

9



THE POWER OF POLICY

alteration of cart-and-horse

sequencing so that the needs ofchildren precede the needs ofprograms. Why roll the dice whendealing with other people's childrenby assigning them automatically tothe dubitable benefits of the nearest

regular classroom? Such placement,far from being-at the moment, atleast-a politically expedient choice,may be more in line with what thecurrents of judicial activism havebeen suggesting. It is thusincumbent upon our leaders inspecial education and deaf educationto stem the flow of the trickle down

school of economic thought. Why?Because just as the capital gains taxplan would end up benefittingthose who needed the benefit least,so, too, would deaf and disabilitylearners enjoy only indirectlywhatever benefits trickled down

from the regular beneficiaries ofexcellence provided to them inmainstream classrooms. What

remains to be done? Two things:1) a brief look at the judicial rulingtrends, and 2) a revisiting of thetrenchantly-stated recommendationsfrom the Commission on the

Education of the Deaf reported byits chairman, Bowe (1991).

Judicial Activism

"What all the wisemen

praised has nothappened; what all thedamned fools saidwould happen hascome to pass," (JohnTaylor^ speaking inmemory of his father.Gen, Maxwell Taylor,quoting an obscureBritish statesman in

The Washington Post,June 20, 1995)To appreciate more fully the

contextual legal environmentwithin which special educationreform is embedded, a glance at the

spate of key legislative enactmentshelps us gain perspective when weexamine some judicial leaningsoccurring within the era.

According to Cohen (1981;1993), a typical year produces(1) upwards of 50,000 pages ofstatutory material that are enactedat the federal and state levels,(2) upwards of 30,000 case lawrulings that are handed down bythe courts on such statutes, and(3) upwards of 60,000-plus pages ofadministrative regulations, policyletters and executive decrees that

crop-up between the covers of thevoluminous Federal Register,Cohen noted that these decrees,papers and reg5-though not havingthe full clout of law-are

nonetheless enforceable proceduralentities, in and of themselves,thereby enjoying the full clout ofpolicy.

REI-type legislativeenactments-embracing theeducation reform themes of equity,access, excellence, and zero reject-hinge dramatically on the statutorytext, ".„education for all handicappedchildren," Kauffman and Hallahan

(1995) cited, "the cudgel ofliteralness" with which the courts

have been handing down decisionsdictating the literal inclusion of allstudents, no matter the degree ofdisability, no matter the kind ofdisability. Whereas the rhetoricalmeaning of all suggests varyingdegrees of approximation towardsome totality, the etymologicalmeaning of,all tolerates few, if any,exceptions toward this same goal oftotality. All-as a term frequentingthe policy language of schoolreform-is usually juxtaposed tosome form of the verb to include.

And the very denotation to includemeans "to list some members of the

population at hand, but not all"(Lippman, 1989). America2000-the Republican White Houseforbear to Goals 2000, its

Democratic White House

incarnation-proudly asserted, "Allchildren will start school ready toleam by the year 2000," then thisbecomes appealing rhetoric on theupside and fanciful thinking on thedownside. The statement defines

neither ready nor suggests whatdevelopmental age such schoolingmight begin at, especially forlearners with disabilities. Clearly,in this context, all connotes most,or predominant measure, Keogh(1988, p. 20) rounded out this yo-yoing of figurative and literal usagewith comparable examples ofjuxtaposing incongruous meanings(i.e., ",„general education embracingspecial education to the point whereall education is special," cf. Will,1986). Keogh proceeded toeloquently cashier this non sequitarby stating: "It is a strange logicindeed that calls for the regularsystem of education to take overresponsibility for learners withspecial needs when it already has ahard enough time handling theneeds of its regular learners!"(p. 20).

Osborne and DiMattia

(1994), Thomason (1994), and Yell(1995) have canvassed the breadthand depth of litigation surroundingthe legislative mandate for the leastrestrictive environment. Fields and

Rostetter (1993) have reported thatthe incidence of court cases in

special education has nearlydoubled from 1990 to 1993. In

some quarters, the bench hasappeared to be undulyadventuresome by abandoning legalprecedent to promote the reformmeasures of mainstreaming-^ejudicial parlance for inclusion. Suchadventuring is what Yell (1995)called judicial activism. Citingstandard reference texts in law. Yellexplained judicial activism as anyhighly personalistic effort ofdecision-making that renders ajudge's ruling favorable to the best

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 37 JADARA

10

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

perceived interests of thecommonwealth, whilesimultaneously ignoring theaccumulated case law on the issue

at hand. Appearances to thecontrary, such adventures simplydo not obtain. For example,though Osborne and DiMattia(1995) allowed that in the earlydays of related litigation, the courtsgave greater latitude to thediscretionary judgment ofeducators; today's litigiousenvironment is different. Now, theinclusionary setting is the norm.Now, the burden of the proof isincumbent upon the plaintiff toshow that inclusion is not feasible.

Now, the judgment of schoolofficials is not sufficient. Thoughthis trend may not-in itself-justifythe use of the term judicialactivism^ it does justify theemergence of educator activism inspecial education and, especiallydeaf education. An activism that is

focused on the child, not the place.Yell (1995) and Thomason

(1994) have given prominentattention to an inclusion decision

that further dispels any allusion toan adventuresome judiciary. The5th Federal Circuit Court of

Appeals handed down the two-pronged Daniel Test (Daniel, R.R.V. State Board of Education, 874,F2d 1036, 5th Circuit, 1989). Thisruling-applying as it does only tothe 5th Circuit District of Texas,Louisiana, and Mississippi-hassignificant contributory value to theaccumulating case law beingdetermined in other jurisdictions.The ruling specifically asked: 1) "Isthe education that is being providedwithin the mainstream setting-giventhe presence of supplementaryservices-satisfactorily achieving thechild's lEP?" and 2) If themainstream setting cannot achievethis, then an [extruded] placementoption becomes appropriate"(Thomason, 1994, pp. 02-03). Until

the U.S. Supreme Courtincorporates this reasoning into oneof its own decisions, the"contributory value" of the DanielTest remains to be seen.

Commission on Education of the

Deaf Redux

"America does not

want a different set oflaws in specialeducation. America

wants its present lawsto he more responsiveto the needs of itschildren with

disabilities." (Avariation on a theme

propounded byPostmaster General

Runyon to theCongress in TheWashington Post, June29, 1995)The 1991 U.S. Office of

Education Thirteenth annual reportto Congress on the implementation ofIDEA (USOE, 1991) stated thatalmost 70% of our nation's

disability student population hasbeen served in regular classroomsfor at least 40% and up to 100% ofthe school day; whereas for most ofthe remaining 30%, an extrudedplacement option fits thespecifications of the child's lEP andleast restrictive environment

requirement. In the 1993 U.S.Office of Education Summary of the14th annual report to Congress onspecial education {fummary, 1993),findings were cited from theLongitudinal Transition Study ofSpecial Education Students on schoolcompletion rates. Though thedropout rate was pegged at 32% forthe 1985-87 school years, thesensory disabilities category-blindness and deafness-reflected the

smallest contributions to this

statistic. In this self-same

disabilities category, students with

visual impairments were morehighly integrated within themainstream than students with

hearing impairments {cf p. 04).The Summary (1993) went on todeclare...

• "the larger the school's mainstreamprogram and the greater percentageof time the disabled learner spentin the classroom, the greater wouldbe the likelihood of failing grades,absenteeism and dropping out ofschool." (p. 03);

• "Students with hearingimpairments had the second highestgraduation rates (73%) and thethird lowest dropout rates for alldisabilities" (p. 09); and

• "Deaf students were 100% morelikely than all students withdisabilities to continue their

schooling through age 21" (p. 20).In the most recently

available 1994 U.S. Office of

Education Summary of the 15thannual report to Congress on specialeducation (Summary, 1994), the non-graduation rate for the 1990-91school year was 41% while at thesame time "more children were beingplaced in integrated settings than inany previous years of reporting"(p. 02). Bowe (1991) presented anot dissimilar portrayal during thissame time frame when COED cited

the data that during the early yearsof P.L. 94-142, private residentialschools for the deaf witnessed a

67% drop in enrollment, with theirpublic residential schoolcounterparts registering a lessdramatic 18% drop cf. p. 23).Furthermore, though the numberof deaf child placements in bothpublic and private residentialschools combined dropped from35% to 25% by the mid-80s, thatthe number has stabilized at the

25% level right down to the mid-90s (Personal communication withDr. Tom Allen, Dir. of Center forAssessment and Demographic

JADARA 38 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

11



THE POWER OF POLICY

Studies at Gallaudet University,June 26, 1995).

Are we doing enough indeaf education to drive home the

policv implications of these trends?The Office of Special EducationProgram's director, Thomas Hehir,addressing the meeting of theNational Governor's Association

during March 1995, went on recordstating: "Congress must not alter anIDEA provision allowing states thediscretion to define a student asdisabled if there is a discrepancybetween how the student is

performing and how the studentshould be performing. Asproblematic as this may be^ itprovides a necessary level ofprotection" (Miller, 1995, p. 04).Hehir went on to articulate the five

principles guiding USOE in thewriting of the 1995 proposedamendments for IDEA. They areas follows:

• Letting students with disabilitiesbenefit from and participate inschool reform,

• Promoting high expectations fordisabled students,

• Addressing the individual needs ofstudents in the least restrictive

environment,

• Ensuring that those closest to adisabled child-parents^ teachers,administrators-have pertinenttraining,

• Focusing more resources onteaching and less on non-directservices (p. 04).

Our work is cut out for us.

We need not re-invent any wheels.Instead, we would do well to revisit what has already beenforthcoming from the prestigious,Congressionally-appointedCommission on the Education of

the Deaf. Their definitive set of 52

recommendations have already beenpartially adopted by appropriatefederal responses. However, the setof recommendations that has not

been appropriately addressed has

been the very set that attracted themost voluble outcry from thespecial education community. It isto this set that we direct our

closing focus.• Recommendations #04 and #05

- The U,S, Department ofEducation shouldprovideguidelines,„for local educationagencies and parents to ensurethat a deaf child's lEP takes intoaccount,, academic level and

learning style,,,,preferred mode ofcommunication,,,, linguistic,cultural, socio-emotionalneeds,,„and placement preference.The U,S, Department ofEducation shouldrefocus the leastrestrictive environment conceptby giving greater emphasis toappropriateness than torestrictiveness,„when dealingwith the unique needs of deafchildren (Bowe, 1991, pp. 13,15).

• Commentary- The 1989 policy paper issued bythe Office of Special EducationPrograms addressed for the firsttime the necessity of state andlocal education agencies takingunder more careful account the

unique needs of deaf children inthe lEP process.

- The National Council on

Disability (1986) had alreadysaid as much when it reportedthat the preamble section ofPL 94-142 while reinforcing thedual concepts of appropriateeducation and unique needsomits any direct reference tothe concept of Ire, Consequentupon this analysis, NCODissued a position statement infavor of the later-developedCOED recommendation. To

wit:

- The Congress shoulddirect theDepartment of Education,,, toenforce standards for theapplication of the least

restrictive environment

requirement; ,„such standardsshould clarify that the primarydeterminant of whicheducational setting is the leastrestrictive is the educational

appropriateness of theprogram (NCOD, 1986,p. 48; emphases added).

- The 1990 policy paper issued byUSOE/OSEP offering guidanceto local and state education

agencies on handling thecommunication needs of deaf

children further addressed this

need:

- All children,„have the right tobe educated in the least

restrictive environment settingin which an appropriateeducation can be provided. Inthe case of children who aredeaf, it is essential that thestaff who are providing thecontinuum of services cancommunicate in a mode

appropriate to children whoare deaf,

- Public agencies are required tomake available a continuum

of available placement options,including instruction inregular classes, specialclasses,„and institutions (p.17).

• Recommendation #06

- The U,S, Department ofEducation should issue a policystatement that,„brings intoconsideration both the nature ofthe curriculum and the nature ofthe instructional

methodology,„before making aplacement decision (p. 17).

• Commentary- The previously referenced 1988policy paper by USOE/OSEPoffering guidance to local andstate education agenciesconfirms what the NCOD

(1986) previously supported inweighing the unique needs of

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 39 JADARA

12

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

the deaf child against theconcerns of the Ire. To wit:

- The design of each child'seducational program shouldtake into account matters ofcurricular content and

methods of curriculardelivery...and that these needsbe addressed in the lEP

(p. 18).• Recommendations #07, #08, and#09

- The U.S. Department ofEducation shouldprovideguidelines and standards forschools and parents to follow...sothat whenever selecting the leastrestrictive environment

consideration be given to thepotential harmful effects on thechild (p. 18).

- The U.S. Department ofEducation shouldprovideinterpretive guidance...thatremoval from the regularclassroom does not requirecompelling evidence (p. 19).

- The U.S. Department ofEducation should ensure that the

states maintain and nurture the

existence of center schools asbeing viable placementoptions...required by law (p. 23).

• Commentary- Prior to 1988, an erroneously-worded USOE/OSEP

monitoring ̂ vd^e-Manual lO-demanded the accumulation of

compelling evidence to show thepotential harmful effects thatcould result in carrying out Irerequirements. Althoughsubsequent editions of themanual have removed this

damaging interpretation,policymakers andadministrators have yet toreceive the clear-cut guidancethat the deaf child's uniqueneeds can legally and justly beconsidered in overriding Ireconcerns.

- IDEA~in principle-alreadyrecognizes these nuances; yet,until its 1995 amended version

makes such principles explicit,deaf children will remain at risk

to the interpretive whims ofdecision makers. As it stands,the direction of the

recommendations resultingfrom the hearings forreauthorization reported byboth the May 9th NationalCouncil on Disability (1995)release and late-breakingsources, cited above, appearingin Education Daily seemsdisposed toward greatlyincreasing parental involvementin the process.We have now come full-

circle with the reform literature in

special education~a literaturesprinkled with shoulds. The verbsof the subjunctive mood, expressingas they do the idea of desirableness,also communicate a curious sense of

being non-committal {cf. House &Harman, 1950). Are we doingenough to bridge the gap betweenthe shoulds and the action-primedverbs of the indicative and

politically-primed verbs of theimperative moods? And speakingof mood, the "moods" of thepublic's opinions and sentimentswill probably continue to holdsway over the published findings ofthe empirical research community.The need for educator activism and

legislative advocacy will thuscontinue to be with us for the

remainder of this century until theplacement options of inclusion andextrusion are made a permanentpart of the parentally exercisedcontinuum of services options.Categorical labeling, thoughfrowned upon by the reform-minded, may indeed be of littlepedagogical value; yet, until a morepracticable alternative arises,categorical funding must bemaintained. Why? Because when

the special identities of children arelost, so, too, are the capacities toaddress them lost.

PLACE-the real estate of

the instructional process-hasborders. It is where things are,where things happen. It is the box.And it is incumbent upon ourleadership to find the bubble in thebox that will help us get our focusoff the physical coordinates andonto the metaphysical magic thatoccurs in the teaching/learningprocess. Yes, place is critical butwe must focus on the what that

goes on inside that place, alwayskeeping in perspective the uniqueneeds of the deaf learner.

Afterwords

After many words are said,some thoughts linger. I have twothoughts for you. One for learnersfrom the letters of Henry James tohis friend, Grace Norton. An onefor readers from the songs of boththe Gershwin brothers and IrvingBerlin.

For learners:

Remember that everylife has its own specialproblems, not yoursbut another's.

Be content with the

terrible algebra of yourown.

Even if we don't reachthe sun, we shall haveat least been up in aballoon.

We all live together,and those who love

and know, list somost.

And for leaders:

Life is short, we'regrowing older.So don't become an

also-ran.

You'd better dance

little lady, dance littleman.

JADARA 40 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

13



THE POWER OF POLICY

Dance whenever youcan.

There may be troubleahead

But where there's

moonlighty love andromance

Let's face the musicand dance!

References

Baker-Hawkins, S. & Easterbrooks, S. (Eds.). (1994).Deaf and hard-ofhearing students: Educational service guidelines.Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors ofSpecial Education.

Bowe, E.G. (1992). Approaching equality: Education ofthe deaf Silver Spring, MD: T.J. Publishers.

Braaten, S., Kauffman, J.M., Braaten, B., Polsgrove, L.,& Nelson, C.M. (1988). The REI: Patent medicine forbehavioral disorders. Exceptional Children^ 55(01), 21-27.

Briand, X. (1993b, March 7). Governors take Gingrichup on 'corrections day' for IDEA. Education Daily, 28(44), 1-3.

Briand, X. (1995a, May 12). Parents need bigger roleimder IDEA. Education Daily, 28(92), 3.

Catlett, S.M. & Osher, T.W. (1994). What is inclusion?An analysis of organizational position statements. Alexandria,VA: National Association of State Directors of SpecialEducation.

Cohen, M.L. (1993). Justice across generations: Whatdoes it mean? Washington, DC: Public PolicyInstitute/AARP.

Cohen, M.L. (1981). Legal research in a nutshell (3rded.). St. Paul: West Publishers.

Clark, D.L., & Astuto, T.A. (1990). The dysfunctionof federal education policy and national education needs in the'90s. In D.E. Mitchell & M.E. Goenz (Eds.), Education politicsfor the new century ̂ p. 11-26). London: Palmer Press.

Deno, E. (1970). Forum: Special education asdevelopmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37(03), 229-237.

Dunn, L. (1968). Special education: Is much of itjustifiable.^ Exceptional Children, 35(01), 5-22.

Elam, S., & Stickney, B.B. (1990). Two decades ofGallup polling: Major findings and policy implications. InL.R. Marcus, & BJD. Stickney (Eds.), Politics and policy in theage of education ̂ p. 178-199). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Elmore, RJ. (Ed.). (1990). Restructuring schools: Thenext generation of educational rrform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fields, M.J. & Rostetter, D. (Eds.). (1993). Leading andmanaging for performance: A n examination of challengesconfronting special education. Alexandria, VA: NationalAssociation of State Directors of Special Education.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1991). Framing the REIdebate: Abolitionists v. conservatives. In J.S. Lloyd, N.N.Singh, & A.C. Repp (Eds.), The REI: Alternative perspeaiveson concepts, issues and models ̂ p. 241-255). Sycamore, IL:Sycamore Press.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1995). Inclusive schoolsmovement and the radicalization of special education reform.In J.M. Kauffman & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of fullinclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current specialeducation bandwagon ̂ p. 213-242). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed (8700Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897).

Gerber, R. (1994, December 18). You can't lead byfollowing. The Washington Post, p. A7.

Hehir, T. (1994). Special education: Successes andchallenges. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(03), 5.

Hodapp, R. (1995). Parental educational expectations foradolescents with disabilities. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Graduate School of Education (405 Hilgard Ave.,Los Angeles, CA 90024).

Hoff, D. (1995, February 14). Administrators andconservatives finding common groimd in education reform.Education Daily, 28(30), 2.

House, H.C., & Harman, S.E. (1950). DescriptiveEnglish grammar (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Houston, H. (1988). Restructiu-ing secondary schools.In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools(Chapter 7). NY: Teachers' College Press

Hurst, DJC. (1984). Of boxes, bubbles and effectivemanagement. Harvard Business Review (Reprint #84-305).

Idol, L. (1994). questions related to inclusion andcollaboration in the schools. (ERIC Accession No. ED 370-331).

Jenkins, JJl., & Pious, C.G. (1991). Full inclusion andthe REI: A reply to Thousand and Villa. ExceptionalChildren, 57(06, 562-564.

Keogh, B.K. (1988). Improving services for problemlearners: Rethinking restructuring. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 21(01), 19-22.

Kerr, D.H. (1990). Authority and responsibility inpublic schooling. In J.I. Goodlad (Ed.), The ecology of schoolrenewal: 86th yearbook of the National Society for the Study ofEducation (pp. 20-40). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kubicek, F.C. (1994). Special education reform in thelight of 24 federal and state court decisions. Journal of SpecialEducation, 28(01), 27-42.

Lipp, M. (1992). An emerging perspective on specialeducation: A development agenda for the '90s. SpecialEducation Leadership Review, 01(01), 10-39.

Lippman, T.W. (Ed.). (1989). The Washington Postdeskhook on style (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: TheWashington Post.

Lukacs, J. (1993). End of the 20th Century and themodem age. NY: Ticknor & Fields.

Macpherson, R.J.S. (1994a). Administrative policy asmyth. (ERIC Accession No. Ed 374 543).

Macpherson, R.J.S. (1994b). Restructuringaccountability: Educative policy. ^RIC Accession No. ED 374544).

Marcus, L.R., & Stickney, B.D. (Eds.). Politics andpolicy in the age of education. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

McCarty, S.D. (1993). Educational professionals'understanding of the inclusion model of special education. (ERICAccession No. ED 369 244).

McCrone, W.P. (1994). A two-year report card onTitle I of the American's with Disabilities Act: Implicationsfor rehabilitation coimseling with deaf people. Journal of theAmerican Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 28(2), 10.

Meenaghan, T.M., & Kilty, K.M. (1994). Policyanalysis and research technology. Chicago: Lyceum Press.

Miller, A.B. (1995, March 7). Five principles guideIDEA plan. Educational Daily, 28(44), 4.

Mitchell, D.E., & Goertz, M. E. (Eds.). (1990).Education politics for the new century. London: Falmer Press.

Moore, C., & Carter, S. (1994). Inclusion: Anannotated bibliography. Eugene, OR: Western RegionalResource Center.

National Association of Private Schools for

Exceptional Children. (1987). Guidelines for effectivecooperation between public and private schools in meeting legaland professional responsibilities for the education of children withdisabilities. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

National Coxmcil on Disability. (1986). Towardindependence: An assessment of federal laws and programsaffecting persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council on Disability. (1995). Improving theimplementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act: Makingschools work for all of America's children. Washington, DC:Author.

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment. (1995). Integrating students with special needsinto mainstream schools. Washington, DC: Author (2001 LSt., NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 200364910).

Office of Special Education Programs, USOE. (1994).Fourth annual technical assistance and dissemination conference.(ERIC Accession No. ED 373467).

Osborne, A.G., & DiMattia, P. (1994). IDEA's 'leastrestrictive environment' mandate: Legal implications.Exceptional Children, 61(01), 6-14.

Osborne, A.G., 8c DiMattia, P. (1995). Cotmterpoint-IDEA's 'least restrictive environment' mandate: Another

look. Exceptional Children, 61(06), 582-584.Palmer, C., Redfern, R., 8c Smith, K. (1994). The four

P's of policy. British Journal of Special Education, 21(01), 4-6.

Pearpoint, J., 8c Forest, M. (1992). Using ciu-riculumto build inclusive classrooms. In S.B. Stainback 8c W.C.

Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum considerations in inclusiveclassrooms: Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore:Brookes.

Project Forum. (1994). A forum to examine policy andpractice issues surrounding the annual evaluation of programeffectiveness. Alexandria, VA: National Association of StateDirectors of Special Education.

Putnam, J.W., Spiegel, A.N., 8c Bruininks, R.H. (1995).Future directions in education and inclusion of students with

disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children,61(06), 553-576.

Sage, D.D., 8c Burrello, L.C. (1994). Leadership ineducational reform: An administrator's guide to changes inspecial education. Baltimore: Brookes.

Sailor, W., Gee, K., 8c Karasoff, P. (1992). Schoolrestructuring and full inclusion ̂ re-publication revision 5).

Sailor, W., Gee, K., 8c Karasoff, P. (1993). Fullinclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell (Ed.).Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed.), (Chapter1). NY: Macmilan.

Sizer, T.R. (1993). Initiatives of the Coalition ofEssential Schools, Washington, DC: George WashingtonUniversity, School of Editcation and Human Development.

Skrtic, TM. (1991). The special education paradox:Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Education Review,61(02), 148-206.

Snell, M.E. (Ed.). (1993). Instruction of students withsevere disabilities (4th ed.). NY; Macmillan.

Summary of the 15th annual report to Congress onspecial education. NASDSE Liaison Bulletin, 21(04).

Siunmary of the 14th annvial report to Congress onspecial education. NASDSE Liaison Bulletin, 19(03).

Thomason, J. (1994). Special education administratorissues and the law. (ERIC Accession No. ED 372 568).

Timar, Ti. (1990). The politics of schoolrestructuring. In D.E. Mitchell 8c D.E. Goertz (Eds.).Education politics for the new century (pp. 55-76). London:Falmer Press.

U3. Office of Education (1991). Thirteenth annualreport to Congress on the implementation of IDEA.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Education (1984). The nation responds:Recent efforts to improve education. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Vygotskii, L5. (1962). Thought and language.Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Weisel, E. (1992, April 19). When passion isdangerous. Parade Magazine, pp. 20-21.

Will, M.C. (1986). Educating children with learningproblems: Shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5),411415.

Yell, M.L. (1995). Point-The 'least restrictiveenvironment' mandate and the courts: Judicial activism orjudicial restraint? Exceptional Children, 61(06), 578-581.

End Notes

William J. A. Marshall, Dept. ofAdm. and Supv., GallaudetUniversity, Washington, DC 20002.

Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996 41 JADARA

14

JADARA, Vol. 30, No. 1 [1996], Art. 7


THE POWER OF POLICY

P.L. 88-352

P.L. 93-112

P.L. 94-142

P.L. 99-372

P.L. 100-259

P.L. 101-366

P.L. 102-166

P.L. 102421

P.L. 102-973

Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964

Sec. 504 of Rehab. Act of 1973; Amended as P.L. 102-973

Education for All Handicapped Children's Act of 1975; Amended as:

P.L. 101476

P.L. 102-119

Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendments of 1992

Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Civil Rights Act of 1991

1992 Amendments to Education of the Deaf Act of 1986

Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1992

JADARA 42 Vol. 30, No. 1, 1996

15



point of view the power of policy: premise and product

Documents