For "Children Who Vary from the Normal Type": Special Education in Boston, 1838-1930

1. Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION All teachers on receiving a new class ofchildren shouldgive specialstudy to the children who appear to be unusually dull or unresponsive in order to discover, ifpossible, the cause of the appearance. Mental defects amounting tofeeble-mindedness in the scientificsense ofthe term are not always nor even usually the cause ofapparent stupidity. Such causes as deafness, nearsightedness, andpartial blindness maygo unobservedfor a time, but, when discovered, affordall necessary explanation. If, after the regular teacher has made a carefol study ofa case, and has become convinced that the cause ofthe apparent feeble-mindedness is beyond her power to discover or to remove, the case shouldbe reportedto the Superintendent ofPublic Schools, who willcallin the expertservices ofthe teachers ofthe specialclasses, and, ifhe deems it best, authorize the removal of the child to one ofthe special classes. EDWIN SEAVER, Superintendent of the Boston Public Schools, 1900 To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and. .. specialclasses, separate schooling or other removal ofchildren with disabilities ftom the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity ofthe disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids andservices cannot be achievedsatisfactorily. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1990 Throughout the history of special education, two fundamental yet conflicting positions have persisted regarding the education of students with disabilities: the belief, to varying degrees, that such children should 3 4 Education in Boston have opportunities to experience full integration in school with their nondisabled peers; and the belief, also to varying degrees, that such integration can be ill-advised, ineffective, or both.l The interplay and tension among these two beliefs has long constituted one of the defining characteristics of special education in the American public schools. Certainly, discussions on the placement and instruction of students with disabilities currently dominate professional and scholarly discourse in the field, with the 1990s having witnessed a plethora of commentary and research on the subject. A number ofscholars and practitioners have strongly supported more inclusive or integrative approaches to educating such children. Bilden, Stainback and Stainback, Wang, Will, Ferguson, Skrtic, and others argue that while inclusion is a practical, effective approach to placement and instruction , more importantly, the ethical and legal considerations in the pursuit of true equity in education demand it. Others, such as Kauffman, Fuchs and Fuchs, Lieberman, and Shanker caution against fully inclusive special education practices and recommend maintaining separate facilities and instructional settings, arguing that integration can fail to recognize, address, or respect the individual needs ofcertain children, especially those with severe disabilities.2 Issues related to the inclusion movement are obviously complex and intricately interconnected. Questions of equity, funding, technology, staffing, and curriculum directly affect the philosophy as well as practice of inclusion while raising other, much broader questions concerning the redefinition and reconceptualization of the public school experience along more integrative lines. Ultimately, untangling and addressing the many theoretical and practical problems and opportunities attending such changes in special and general education represents one of the greatest challenges for American schools as they enter the next century. To do so, however, is by no means an easy task; therefore, any and all avenues toward achieving a clearer picture and a more sophisticated yet functional understanding of the special education-general education dynamic thus should be considered and, ifpossible, pursued. One potentially fruitful approach leads back to the past. Formal special education in the public schools possesses a long and fascinating history, with many of the problems, issues, conditions, and possibilities currently extant in special education (for example, labeling, placement, differentiations of status and power between special and general educators, appropriate curriculum and instructional methodology, teacher training, staff Introduction 5 development, as well as social and psychological constructions of exceptionality ) having been discussed widely among teachers, administrators, scholars, and parents for well over one hundred years. At the heart ofthese discussions has been the debate over the segregation and integration of students with formally identified disabilities in public schools. To examine this history is, in many ways, to catch a glimpse ofourselves in the mirror as we see how others before us struggled with similar questions, similar arguments, and similar hopes. The past twenty years have seen a significant amount of historical scholarship in the field ofspecial education. Sarason and Doris, Scheerenberger , Winzer, Trent, and Van Cleve and Crouch have...