Special education in the US dates to the early 19th century where institutions were created to isolate people with mental illness, developmental disabilities previously called mental retardation, delinquents and criminals (Dorn, Fuchs & Fuchs,1996, p.13). it is quite daunting that these people with developmental disabilities were grouped with delinquents and criminals just because people could not understand why they were different. It is important to note that the case of Brown vs Topeka Board of Education in 1954 changed the momentum of special education allowing people with developmental disabilities to be educated in general classrooms (Rotatori, Obiakor & Bakken,2011, p.7). This shows that special education has progressed in recent times and a lot has changed. This reflection will ponder on articles on effects of setting events on faulty notions on teaching and learning that obstruct the success of special education, problem behaviour of students with severe disabilities, positive behaviour support and applied behaviour analysis and misconceptions and guidelines for applied behaviour analysis in special education.
Heward (2003) shared his opinions on how special education should be. He highlighted how the numerous research on effective instruction is not applied to people with developmental disabilities even though there is evidence it works for people without developmental disability (p.188). This comes as a surprise as I thought the goal of applied behaviour analysis is to improve the lives of people with developmental disabilities using evidence. However philosophic doubt is necessary so this may be the reason it has not been used in special education and people may want to conduct more research. Another key point raised was on how learning can be obstructed by a structured curriculum (p.188). This made me indecisive in my thought process. A part of me agrees to this notion in terms of structured curricula promoting robotic learning hence students’ inability to think outside the box. It conditions their minds in such a way that they can only apply only what they have been taught in class. In contrast when there is deviation of what they have been taught, they cannot think of what to do. An example is growing up my mother taught me how to make Ghanaian light soup with garden eggs which is a vegetable grown in Ghana. Moving to the UK, I found myself confused when I needed to make light soup and there were no garden eggs. I ended up calling my mum to ask for advice only to find out you could use only tomatoes to make the same soup. I am lucky I could call my mum to find out what to do but teachers cannot always be around to tell us what to do. Looking back, it makes sense to use only tomatoes as garden eggs are added to add more flavour to the soup, but the star ingredient is tomatoes. However, a structured curricula also provides consistency and accuracy in learning as it tunes the students mind on what exactly to expect. Furthermore, it prevents students from deviating from the important elements of learning.
On the other hand, the results on the experiment by Kennedy & Itkonen (1993) was not surprising. The results of the experiment highlighted eliminating or reducing setting events could help improve problem behaviours (p.326). This is relatable as whenever my toddler does not sleep throughout the night; he would throw tantrums when it is time for school and refuse to go. If I manage to take him, his teacher will tell me how difficult the day was as he does not participate in class activities like he would normally do.
Also, the article on positive behaviour support (PBS) by Johnston et al. (2006) was an eye opener. The fact that there is a lot of funding for such a programme by the federal and state agencies (p.53) was shocking. This is because the federal and state agencies are responsible for protecting the vulnerable population ensuring all their care and needs are meet with the highest standard. To think they would allow and fund an approach which has no regulators, no research requisite or need for formal training is compelling. Despite a meta-analysis proving there a negligible correlation between PBS and positive lifestyle change (p.59), these practitioners of PBS insist it a new science (p.58). If meta- analysis, the highest level of evidence has proven there is no correlation, it is alarming these state agencies, and the federal agencies continue to pump money into it. In addition, in some states PBS is more recognizable than applied behaviour analysis. Likewise, knowing training for positive behaviour support is in a non-academic setting means, training may be inconsistent and subjective. Another crucial point raised was the fact that PBS practitioners do not accept that their fundamentals were from applied behaviour analysis (p.58). This I believe is because of their reluctance to take formal education like in applied behaviour analysis which formal education is a requirement.
It is important to note that applied behaviour analysis (ABA) is not limited to autism as suggested by Trump et al. (2018) (p.382). This article gave examples of events that ABA can be used outside autism. It also referred to punishment used in ABA to manage behaviour. In my view, aversive stimuli are diabolical and may have long term effects on the clients. I am glad alternative interventions have been discovered which are equally effective. Punishment can be good for the client. It helps instil discipline by letting the client know there are repercussions to every action. An example is whenever my toddler throws his tablet on the ground, I would take it away. He stopped throwing it when he realized I will always take it from him if he does.
Lastly, in all the articles, the authors did not only make criticisms on the subject matter, but they also provided solutions or recommendations on what could be improved in special education. This recommendation could help policy makers to make informed decisions on special education.
In conclusion, special educators and behaviour analysts must work hand in hand to promote independent living of people living with disabilities and should always be looking for ways to improve their daily lives. There should also be more research into special education by special educators especially as they have first-hand experiences with people living with disabilities.
References
Dorn, S., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1996). A historical perspective on special education reform. Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849609543696.
Heward, W.L. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the
effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 186-205.
Johnston, J.M., Foxx, R.M., Jacobson, J.W., Green, G., & Mulick, J.A. (2006). Positive
behaviour support and applied behaviour analysis. The Behaviour Analyst, 29, 51-74.
Kennedy, C.H., & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects of setting events on the problem behavior
of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 26(3), 321-
327.
Rotatori, A. F., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (Eds.). (2011). History of special education. Emerald Group Publishing.
Trump, C.E., Pennington, R.C., Travers, J.C., Ringdahl, J.E., Whiteside, E.E., & Ayres,
K.M. (2018). Applied behavior analysis in special education: Misconceptions and
guidelines for use. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(6), 381-393.
