The Works of Lloyd Dunn, Madeleine Will, E. D. Hirsch, and A Few Select Others: A Nexus of Similar Provocative Ideas

In a previous editorial, I mentioned that it is critical—almost mandatory—for scholars to stand "on the shoulders of giants" (Paul, 2018b, p. 289). This provides the springboard for creativity and wisdom—and may influence and enhance one's current research thrust or perspective. Another consequence—perhaps an unintended one—is that scholars might perceive a bigger picture, one that extends beyond or even complements their specific area of interest or expertise. Unless you possess a severe case of generational myopia, you might be surprised to see a nexus of similar provocative ideas promoted by these giants. I discuss a few intellectual figures below, particularly those who have influenced my scholarly endeavors.

Let's start with the work of Lloyd Dunn. Some background information on this giant figure can be found in an obituary on a Vanderbilt University website, Vanderbilt News ("Developmental Disability Education Pioneer," 2006). Among other achievements, Dunn developed the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, which is not only an effective measure of standard English vocabulary but also a screening test of "verbal ability in early reading." The use of this test with d/Deaf and hard of hearing students was discussed in a 2014 American Annals of the Deaf article by Bennett, Gardner, and Rizzi. The notion of a "picture vocabulary test" certainly influenced my dissertation work (Paul, 1984).

The far greater influence—one that continues today—has been provided by Dunn's remarks about special education, especially comments on constructs such as overrepresentation, accessibility (to the general education curriculum), and inequality. One of Dunn's blockbuster comments is as follows:

"If I had my way, the field would get rid of the term 'special education,'" [Dunn] said. "There should be no dichotomy between general and special education. We are all just school teachers who don't know as much as we should about educating young people who are very different from the average."

("Developmental Disability Education Pioneer," 2006)

Dunn's comment certainly is the precursor to, or at least related to, Madeleine Will's Regular Education Initiative (see related discussion in Winzer, 2009). Will promoted inclusive general education for students with disabilities and was instrumental in facilitating the development of transition and supported employment programs. (Note: In my view, currently, transition and supported employment programs are in need of increased research and funding.) Will cited her concerns about the negative effects of "pull-out" (into self-contained classrooms, etc.) programs, and, similarly to Dunn, she promoted the education of students with "mild to moderate" disabilities in general education classrooms (but read on). "Access to the general education curriculum" (and teaching, etc.) started to pick up momentum.

Both Dunn's and Will's frameworks have been echoed, including with education implications, by numerous researchers on inclusion, starting in the 1980s (e.g., S. Stainback & W. Stainback, 1992; W. Stain-back & S. Stainback, 1984, 1990). However, Will proceeded further than Dunn: She favored the inclusion of all children with disabilities, including those with severe and profound disabilities (e.g., moderate to intensive disabilities), preferably in schools these children would attend if they did not possess a "special education" label. I suspect that Will was highly praised by the radical inclusionists.

The other offspring consequence of the basically similar thinking of Dunn and Will was the emergence of the construct labeled "developmental similar" or the "typical developmental framework." This is the assertion that the development of children with disabilities follows (or should follow) the same trajectory and pattern as that of typical children. Of course, instruction may need to be differentiated, sometimes markedly, to fit the profile of an individual child. This idea was not exactly new (see discussion in Paul, Wang, & Williams, 2013, particularly chapters 1 and 2), but it added a substantial amount of fuel to the inclusion movement. In my view, it put an end to the notion of special academic curricula for children with disabilities, albeit there seems to be a place for constructs such as the "expanded core." And as most of you may know, the developmental...