A political economy of learning disabilities.
Representation and Reconstruction
Sternberg and Spear-Swerling (1999) place my research within what they call the "contextual" perspective on learning disabilities, as opposed to the dominant "biological" and "cognitive" perspectives that view learning disabilities as an intrinsic neuropathology. Although I recognize this and other types of learning-relevant student variability, my work is concerned with external processes by which such variability is socially constructed and represented as "learning disabilities;" that is, as a social category like those of class, race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age, and disability itself. Moreover, because social categories are not represented equally, I am concerned, ultimately, with unequal power relations in society, relations that determine who gets represented, how and by whom, and with what social consequences. (1) In this regard, my work focuses on the "disciplinary power" of special education which, operating under the taken-for-granted conventions of its knowledge tradition, has the effect of constituting students as subjects for investigation, surveillance and treatment, a representation that has negative moral and political consequences because it involves various forms of medicalization, objectification, confinement, and exclusion. (2)
My goal is to disrupt this power relation, to deconstruct it and the social categories it creates by exposing inconsistencies, contradictions, and silences in special education's functionalist knowledge tradition, and by disseminating alternative interpretations of special education and student disability. Moreover, as a critical theorist grounded in the democratic humanist tradition of John Dewey and American pragmatism, my aim is to encourage special educators to reconstruct their practices and discourses using interpretations that promote the values of democracy, community, participation, and inclusion (see Skrtic, 1986, 1988a, 1990a, 1991a, 1995a, 1995c, 1995e, 1995g, 1995h). (3)
Because social institutions are instrumental in constituting humans as subjects, my research is concerned more broadly with public education's role in constructing student disability, which I address through detailed organizational analyses of the structure and culture of schools. In this work I argue that student disability and special education are institutional categories created by a perfect storm in the historical development of public education--the fateful convergence of a dramatic increase in student diversity and the extensive bureaucratization of schools in the first half of the 20th century. As bureaucracies, schools are performance organizations, standardized, non-adaptable structures that must screen out diversity by forcing students with unconventional needs out of the system. And because they are public bureaucracies charged with serving all students, special education emerges as a legitimating device, an institutional practice that, in effect, shifts the blame for school failure to students through medicalizing and objectifying discourses, while reducing the uncertainty of student diversity by containing it through exclusionary practices. Moreover, as institutionalized bureaucracies, schools do not change on demand; they respond to mandates like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by signaling compliance with the letter of the law through symbols and ceremonies of change that are largely decoupled from meaningful practice (think of IEPs, IEP staffings, and what passes as inclusive education or "access to the general curriculum"). Avoiding the social construction of student disability and achieving the spirit of the IDEA both require a fundamentally different kind of organization, that is, a non-bureaucratic problem-solving organization known historically as "adhocracy" (Bennis & Slater, 1964) and today as the "learning organization" (Argyris & Schon, 1978, 1996). Adhocracies are premised on innovation rather than standardization, on the invention of personalized practices through organizational learning grounded in collaboration, mutual adaptation, and reflexive discourse among the organization's members and the people it serves (see Skrtic, 1988b, 1990b, 1991a, 1991b, 1995b, 1995d, 1995f, 1999, 2003).
The goal of this line of research is to deconstruct and reconstruct public education and special education - or in pragmatist terms, to redefine the context of a social problem until it disappears (Blanko, 1994)--by showing that, regardless of its causes or extent, student diversity is not only not a problem in a learning organization, it is an asset, an enduring source of uncertainty, and thus the driving force behind innovation, growth of knowledge, and progress, which in organizational terms makes educational equity a precondition for educational excellence. While not denying that pathology-based moral arguments for educational equity were instrumental in securing the important rights of the IDEA, this approach has limits as a guide to policy and advocacy, especially since in practice these rights are more symbolic than real in bureaucratic schools.
In terms of reform policy, then, I urged the field to align itself with the school restructuring movement (e.g., McNeil, 1986; Oakes, 1985), which in the late 1980s and early 1990s sought to achieve excellence and equity simultaneously through adhocracy-like structural reforms. In terms of advocacy, I suggested that we were in a position to move beyond interest group politics by arguing that restructuring schools as learning organizations serves the best political and economic interests of all students and of society, particularly under the historical contingencies of an emerging postindustrial era (see Skrtic, 1988b, 1991a, 1991b, 1995b, 1995d, 1995f, 1999, 2003; Skrtic & Sailor, 1996; Skrtic, Sailor, & Gee, 1996).
The first trend of note since my earlier work is the rise of the standards-based reform movement (SBR), which, after overtaking the school restructuring movement in the mid 1990s, was codified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) after having been incorporated into the IDEA in its 1997 reauthorization. On the bright side, the SBR framework of NCLB/IDEA seeks to improve the learning of all students by improving the functioning of school organizations. On the dark side, it is an extreme form of bureaucratic outcomes-based accountability (O'Day, 2002), the very approach that William Spady, architect of outcomes-based education, cautioned against at the start of the SBR movement. Spady called this approach the "traditional" model of SBR, which he rejected because its primary reform strategy, curriculum alignment, retains and extends the existing bureaucratic structure of schools (Champlin, 1991; Spady & Marshall, 1991). The negative effects of this model are apparent in another discouraging trend, the deteriorating conditions of special education practice since 1997. As with the IDEA, realizing the policy advantages of SBR for students with unconventional needs requires collective problem solving, and thus a supportive and collegial learning community premised on reflexive, mutually adaptive and collaborative practice, adhocratic conditions that do not exist in schools under the traditional SBR model (Skrtic, Harris, & Shriner, 2005). Special educators are neither engaged in meaningful collaboration with general educators nor adequately supported by administrators, in general, or with regard to implementing research-based instructional practices (Kozleski, Mainzer, Deshler, Coleman, & Rodriquez-Walling, 2000; Schumaker et al., 2002). (4) Moreover, they are frustrated by ambiguous and competing responsibilities and contradictory expectations, an indication of the increased technical demands and political complexities of their work, demands and complexities for which experienced and especially novice special educators are not prepared (Brownell & Skrtic, 2002; Mainzer, Deshler, Coleman, Kozleski, & Rodriguez-Walling, 2003; McIntyre, 2000). Finally, these unacceptable conditions are reciprocally linked to another trend--the critical shortage of qualified special educators (Kozleski et al., 2000; Mainzer et al., 2003; Mastropieri, 2001; McIntire, 2000).
My recommendation with regard to these SBR-related problems is for the fields of special education and learning disabilities to take a "third-way" policy position between those of NCLB advocates and detractors, one that retains the outcomes focus and rights of NCLB/IDEA, but replaces the traditional model of SBR with what Spady calls the "transformational" model, which for him is "the highest evolution of the outcomes-based concept" (Spady & Marshall, 1991, p. 70). Premised on the belief that the purpose of education is to prepare students for successful community life, this model engages local educators and community stakeholders in a discourse to determine broad school outcomes leading to desirable conditions of life for students as future citizens. At this point, "districts set their existing curriculum frameworks aside" (Spady & Marshall, 1991, p. 70), allowing their curriculum, instructional practices, and organizational structure to evolve in support of the desirable future for students and communities.
In terms of instructional practices, the third-way position should use the idea of universal design to argue for personalizing instruction for all students and, by extension, for restructuring schools as adhocracies to make the necessary organizational learning through collaboration, mutual adaptation and reflexive discourse possible, (5) Most important, in these transformational discourses, both locally and nationally, we should argue for a social, deliberative, or democratic curriculum, one that teaches civic and academic content by engaging students and teachers in social problem solving. (6) Ultimately, then, I am recommending that we argue for a curriculum, pedagogy, and structure for schooling that develops the intellectual capacities and cultural sensibility necessary for a strong democratic future for students and communities.
Organizations are notorious for distorting the social goals that society creates them to achieve (Scott, 1981), a process that in the 20th century turned the goal of education into a type of schooling shaped by the medium of a bureaucratic organization. Type of schooling is an important moral and political question because, beyond the problems noted above, the purposes we ascribe to education reflect our values about the kind of society we aspire to be, our "preferred future expressed as a particular kind of training for the young" (Tyack & Hansot, 1982, p. 261).
Historically, we have ascribed three purposes to education--democratic equality, social mobility, and social efficiency (Labaree, 1997). Democratic equality is concerned with preparing all of our young "with equal care" (p. 17) for effective citizenship, as well as with minimizing social inequality to permit equal participation in the political process. However, the other two purposes are incompatible with democratic equality-social mobility because its concern for giving individual students an advantage in competing for social positions turns education into a commodity, which makes schooling increasingly stratified and unequal; and social efficiency because its concern for allocating students to social positions requires that schooling mirror the stratified and unequal structure of the market economy. This incompatibility among educational purposes reflects the basic tension at the core of all liberal democracies--the tension between democracy and capitalism, between political equality and social inequality--that must be balanced in social institutions like education that serve both masters (Labaree, 1997). Moreover, when imbalances occur, they can be traced to which of two competing political philosophies is dominant in society, market liberalism or developmental liberalism, which are fundamentally different approaches to balancing the tension between democracy and capitalism (Macpherson, 1977; Ryan, 1972). (7)
In this regard, the most important political trend over the past two decades has been the growing dominance of market liberalism in American political culture, which from A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) through NCLB has inordinately influenced the way we think and talk about public education, justify its existence (or elimination), and attempt to reform it (Apple, 2001, 2004; Engel, 2000; Henig, 1994; Loxley & Thomas, 2001).
Market liberalism emphasizes social mobility and social efficiency to the virtual exclusion of democratic equality because it views politics as an extension of market activity, a view in which individuals are mere competitors in the consumption of political goods, and government is simply a protector of economic markets and private rights. Democracy in this view is thin or weak, for the most part amounting to little more than occasional voting for self-selected political elites. Conversely, developmental liberalism emphasizes democratic equality because it views democratic politics itself as a public good, as a source of reciprocal self-development and social improvement in which citizens develop and exert their capacities for collective problem solving through reflexive discourse (Held, 1996; Ryan, 1972). Early-20th century developmental liberals like John Dewey shared a commitment to a strong, participatory form of democracy, one that extends beyond government to all social institutions, including family, church, business, and education (Barber, 1984). As a democratic humanist, Dewey saw all social institutions as sites of political education through participatory politics, and in this sense he saw schools as doubly educational, as both a form of democratic training for the young and a site of political education for professionals and citizens (Dewey, 1976, 1980, 1988a, 1991).
Because strong, participatory democracy is the best defense against all forms of injustice and discrimination, I recommend that, in both local and national transformational discourses, we argue for just such a democratic future for students, communities and professionals. Beyond breaking market liberalism's strangle hold on education and public policy generally, such an achievement will require transforming the professional culture of education.
The political education of strong democrats will take more than an adhocratic or democratic structure for schools. It also requires transforming education's current technocratic form of professionalism into the model of civic professionalism advanced by Dewey and other early-20th century pragmatists and civic progressives (Dewey, 1988b). Premised on the intellectual capacities and cultural sensibility of the strong democrat, the practical rationality of pragmatism (see Note 4), and the traditional idea of a profession as a calling, civic professionalism restores a sense of collective social purpose in the professions. It recognizes the professions' responsibility to the community--especially to those most negatively affected by social problems, including the malformation of social institutions like public education--and ultimately, that the point and value of professional service is its contribution to the good society and the good life for all (Sullivan, 1995).
An important trend in this regard is that civic professionalism is receiving renewed attention today as the mode of inquiry in learning organizations (Argyris & Schon, 1996), as a response to the increased interdependencies and social inequalities of globalization (Kent, 2000; Sullivan, 1995), and as an ethic of civically engaged practice for the professions of education and special education (Skrtic, 2000; Sullivan, 2005).
Because there is little hope of transforming schooling or professionalism without a political re-education of educators and teacher educators as strong democrats, I recommend that the fields of special education and learning disabilities become the vanguard for this type of political re-education in schools and schools of education, and thereby a voice for re-engaging the university in the political life of the community.
(1.) For similarly oriented contextual analyses, see, for example, Carrier (1983), Christensen (1999), and Dudley-Marling (2004). Although the environmental focus of the "response-to-instruction" identification model (e.g., Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003) has implications for such analyses, space limitations preclude addressing it here.
(2.) This admittedly harsh postmodern interpretation will be galling to the career special educator, but this is intentional because I am using it as part of an immanent critique, a form of modern emancipatory social analysis based on the affinity of humans to reconcile their claims about themselves (ideals) with their actual social conditions (reality) (Benhabib, 1986; Kiel, 1995; Note 3). Immanent critiques expose the contradictions between humans' claims and conditions, between their values and practices, with the aim of freeing them from their present conditions, of transforming the real into the ideal. In this regard, my work describes what fields like special education and learning disabilities hold themselves to be, and then confronts them with what they in effect have become. With regard to disciplinary power (Foucault, 1980), by saying that special education "has the effect of" constituting students as subjects, I am referring to Foucault's point that it subjugates professionals as well as their clients (see Skrtic, 1995e).
(3.) I am being explicit in locating my research in the (modern) humanist paradigm because it has been characterized as postmodernist (e.g., Kauffman, 1999; Sasso, 2001). This is understandable perhaps because I use postmodern theories in my analyses, but true only in an important limited sense. Humanists are paradigm pluralists, historically drawing substantive and methodological insights from the other modern paradigms and, more recently, from postmodernism. Democratic humanists, then, select from among such insights those that permit them to reconstruct social problems in ways that advance democratic values, institutions, and practices (Kiel, 1995). Moreover, like other critical theorists, I recognize that certain forms of postmodernism--what others call "strong postmodernism" (Benhabib, 1992) or "antimodernism" (Burbules & Rice, 1991), and what, following Antonio (1989), I call "radical" or "Continental" postmodernism--undercut the very liberationist politics of critical theory. This is why, though I draw upon strong postmodernists such as Foucault (1980) and Derrida (1982), I use their work merely as analytic devices within a broader immanent critique, a modern form of critical social analysis grounded in the humanist paradigm (see Note 2). To the extent that my work can be considered postmodern, it is a form of "weak postmodernism" (Benhabib, 1992), or what, again following Antonio, I call "progressive liberal postmodernism," which is a reappropriation of the modern democratic humanist epistemology, ethical ideals and political commitments of American pragmatism (see Antonio, 1989; Skrtic, 1991a, 1995e, 2004).
(4.) In this latter regard, I can note briefly that NCLB's "scientifically based research" requirement suffers from at least four problems. First, given its inherent logic of fidelity, it amounts to an effort to standardize teaching, which, as we know from the "effective schools" reform movement, intensifies the problem of poor academic performance for vulnerable students (Cuban, 1989; Stedman, 1987; Wise, 1988), including those labeled disabled (Skrtic, 1988b, 1991a, 1991b). Second, as institutionalized bureaucracies, schools are extremely poor contexts for adoption of standardized practices with fidelity, as recent research on implementing research-based practices in schools shows (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilnieta, & Menendez, 2003; Schumaker et al., 2002). Third, an emerging body of research indicates that a balanced, integrated approach is more effective for all students than fidelity to a particular instructional method, a finding that applies both to comparisons of explicit and constructivist methods (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2003; Jones & Southern, 2003; Pressley, Roehrig, Bogner, Raphael, & Dolezal, 2002) and of the explicit methods of direct instruction and strategic instruction, the most widely recognized research-based methods in the field of learning disabilities (Swanson, 2001). Finally, the "scientifically based research" requirement is premised on the instrumental or technical rationality of positivism, which is most suited to narrowly defined problems that focus on one thing at a time defined by one criterion. As such, on its own, positivism is ineffective in institutional contexts like schools where multiple goals and activities must be integrated and general purposes must be translated into specific judgments. In these settings decisions cannot be effectively divided into separate, single-aim issues. Therefore, before technical rationality can work, ambiguous situations must be transformed into solvable problems by balancing goals, activities, and competing values, and this requires practical rationality, the kind of reasoning upon which the democratic humanist tradition of pragmatism is premised. Although positivism has ignored and denigrated it, practical rationality is a precondition of technical rationality and, as such, is indispensable for both science and the development and improvement of professional practice (see Anderson, 1993; Sullivan, 1995).
(5.) I owe the idea of using universal design to argue for the adhocratic structure to Tom Hehir (personal communication, December, 2004). Also see Hehir (2002).
(6.) On the need for, and examples of, such a deliberative curriculum, see Parker (2003).
(7.) A third "managerial" type of liberalism is critically important too, but is beyond the scope of the current discussion. Briefly, managerial liberals are also weak democrats and thus, like market liberals, favor a market model of politics and democracy over more substantive political participation. The difference is that, whereas market liberals view economic markets as the ideal coordinating mechanism of a liberal society, managerial liberals give this distinction to bureaucracy (Hayek, 1967). The archetype bureaucratic organization for early-20th century managerial liberals, including the first generation of university-trained urban superintendents (Tyack & Hanson, 1982), was the capitalist firm, which they adopted as a model for government along with corporate management as a template for public administration. Both market and managerial liberals want limited democracy, the former to protect the market from government interference, the latter to protect public bureaucracies and their administrators and professionals from lay citizen interference. On the negative effects of managerial liberalism for public administration, see Denhardt and Denhardt (2003); for public education and educational reform, see Skrtic and Kent (2004). On the significance of educational administration's adoption of corporate organization and management in the creation of special education, see Skrtic (1988b, 1991a, 1991b, 1995b, 1995d, 1995f).
Anderson, C. W. (1993). Prescribing the life of the mind: An essay on the purpose of the university, the aims of liberal education, the competence of citizens, and the cultivation of practical reason. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Antonio, R. J. (1989). The normative foundations of emancipatory theory: Evolutionary versus pragmatic perspectives. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 721-748.
Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the "Right" way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12-44.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Benhabib, S. (1986). Critique, norm, and utopia: A study of the foundations of critical theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Feminism and the question of postmodernism. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics (pp. 200-241). New York: Routledge.
Bennis, W. G., & Slater, P. (1964). The temporary society. New York: Harper & Row.
Blanko, H. (1994). How to think about social problems: American pragmatism and the idea of planning. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Brownell, M. T., & Skrtic, T. M., (2002, March). Assuring an adequate supply of well qualified teachers to improve the educational outcomes of students with disabilities. Invited testimony presented to the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, Denver, CO.
Burbules, N. C., & Rice, S. (1991). Dialogue across differences: Continuing the conversation. Harvard Educational Review, 61(4), 393-416.
Carrier, J. (1983). Masking the social in educational knowledge: The case of learning disability theory. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 948-974.
Champlin, J. (1991). Taking stock and moving on. Journal of the National Center for Outcomes Based Education, 1, pp. 5-8.
Christensen, C. A. (1999). Learning disability: Issues of representation, power, and the medicalization of school failure. In R. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swerling (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 227-249). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cuban, L. (1989). The "at-risk" label and the problem of urban school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 780-784, 799-801.
Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2003). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. (A. Bass, Trans.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published in 1972)
Dewey, J. (1976). The school and society. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 1, pp. 1-109). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1899)
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 9, pp. 1-370). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1916)
Dewey, J. (1988a). Creative democracy: The task before us. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 14, pp. 224-230). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1939)
Dewey, J. (1988b). The public and its problems. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 2, pp. 235372). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published in 1927)
Dewey, J. (1991). Democracy and educational administration. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953 (Vol. 11, pp. 217-225). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (originally published in 1937)
Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(6), 482-489.
Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control of public education: Market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In M. Foucault, Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.; C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham and K. Soper, Trans.) (pp. 78-108). New York: Pantheon Books.
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(7), 1-16.
Hayek, F. A. (1967). The principles of a liberal social order. In F. Hayek, Studies in philosophy, politics and economics (pp. 160177). London: Routledge & Kagan Paul.
Hehir, T. (2002). Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1-32.
Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Henig, J. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jones, E. D., & Southern, T. (2003). Balancing perspectives on math-ematics instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(9), 1-16.
Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today's special education and its message for tomorrow. Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 244-254.
Kent, R. J. (2000). A global challenge: Reframing democracy and education. American Studies, 41(2/3), 375-391.
Kiel, D. C. (1995). The radical humanist view of special education and disability: Consciousness, freedom, and ideology. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 135-149). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilnieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.
Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R. W., Deshler, D. D., Coleman, M. R., & Rodriguez-Walling, M. (2000). Bright futures for exceptional learners: An agenda to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). How to succeed in school without really learning: The credentials race in American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Loxley, A., & Thomas, G. (2001). Neo-conservatives, Neo-liberals, the New Left and inclusion: Stirring the pot. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 291-301.
Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The life and times of liberal democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mainzer, R. W., Deshler, D., Coleman, M. R., Kozleski, E., & Rodriguez-Walling, M. (2003). To ensure the learning of every child with a disability. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(5), 1-12.
Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Introduction to the special issue: Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by firstyear special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 35, 66-74.
McIntire, J. C. (2000). Case in point: Bright futures? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 13(2), 48-51.
McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Methuem/Routledge & Kegan Paul.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
O'Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced literacy instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14.
Ryan, A. (1972). Two concepts of politics and democracy: James & John Stuart Mill. In M. Fleisher (Ed.), Machiavelli and the nature of political thought (pp. 76-113). New York: Atheneum.
Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 178-193.
Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Bulgren, J. A., Davis, B., Lenz, B. K., & Grossen, B. (2002). Access of adolescents with disabilities to general education curriculum: Myth or reality? Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(3), 1-16.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Skrtic, T. M. (1986). The crisis in special education knowledge: A perspective on perspective. Focus on Exceptional Children, 18(7), 1-16.
Skrtic, T. M. (1988a). The crisis in special education knowledge, in E. Meyen & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth: An introduction (pp. 415-447). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1988b). The organizational context of special education. In E. Meyen & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth: An introduction (pp. 479-517). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1990a). Power/knowledge and the professions. In P. Leone (Ed.), Understanding troubled and troubling youth (pp. 7-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Skrtic, T. M. (1990b). Students with special educational needs: Artifacts of the traditional curriculum. In M. Ainscow (Ed.), Effective schools for all (pp. 20-42). London: David Fulton Publications.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991a). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991b). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-206.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995a). The crisis in professional knowledge. In E. Meyen & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Special education and student disability: Traditional, emerging, and alternative perspectives (pp. 538-577). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995b). Deconstructing/reconstructing public education: Social reconstruction in the postmodern era. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 233-273). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995c). The functionalist view of special education and disability: Deconstructing the conventional knowledge tradition. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 65-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995d). The organizational context of special education reform. In E. Meyen & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Special education and student disability: Traditional, emerging, and alternative perspectives (pp. 729-791). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995e). Power/knowledge and pragmatism: A postmodern view of the professions. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 25-62). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995f). Special education and student disability as organizational pathologies: Toward a metatheory of school organization and change. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 190-232). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995g). The special education knowledge tradition: Crisis and opportunity. In E. Meyen & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Special education and student disability: Traditional, emerging, and alternative perspective (pp. 579-642). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M. (1995h). Theory/practice and objectivism: The modern view of the professions. In T. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 3-24). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (1999). Learning disabilities as organizational pathologies. In R. Sternberg & L. Spear-Swerling (Eds.), Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual (pp. 193-226). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Skrtic, T. M. (2000, July). Civic professionalism and the struggle over needs. Invited address presented at the annual Leadership Project Directors' Conference, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Skrtic, T. M. (2003). An organizational analysis of the overrepresentation of poor and minority students in special education. Multiple Voices, 6(1), 41-57.
Skrtic, T. M. (2004). Critical disability studies. In D. Gallagher, L. Heshusius, R. Iano, & T. Skrtic (Eds.), Challenging orthodoxy in special education: Dissenting voices (pp. 353-362). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M., Harris, K. R., & Shriner, J. G. (2005). The context of special education practice today. In T. Skrtic, K. Harris, & J. Shriner (Eds.), Special education policy and practice: Accountability, instruction, and social challenges (pp. 1-18). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Skrtic, T. M., & Kent, J. R. (2004). Three political models of educational reform. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas.
Skrtic, T. M., & Sailor, W. (1996). School-linked services integration: Crisis and opportunity in the transition to postmodern society. Remedial and Special Education, 17(5), 271-283.
Skrtic, T. M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. (1996). Voice, collaboration and inclusion: Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17(3), 142-157.
Spady W., & Marshall, K. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49, 67-72.
Stedman, L. C. (1987). It's time we changed the effective schools formula. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(3), 215-224.
Sternberg, R. J., & Spear-Swerling, L. (1999) Perspectives on learning disabilities: Biological, cognitive, contextual. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sullivan, W. M. (1995). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America. New York: HarperCollins.
Sullivan, W. M. (2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 1-15.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
Wise, A. E. (1988). The two conflicting trends in school reform: Legislated learning revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 328-333.
THOMAS M. SKRTIC, Ph.D., is professor, University of Kansas.