Introduction

Philosopher Hegel (1820) wrote, ‘The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only at the falling of the dusk’ centuries ago, suggesting that understanding the true function of traditions, customs, institutions, or practices often comes only as they fade away. As applied to special education, Hegel’s quote implies that we can only fully comprehend the role and significance of special education once it has reached a turning point and begun its decline or threat thereof. It is our hope to begin discussions in this special issue that will avoid the night falling completely on special education as various movements attempt to deconstruct and reconstruct it into something that is actually much different from what was originally intended.

The purpose of this special issue is to begin a discussion, one that is currently missing in the field, but that we deeply hope will be continued and be debated broadly – discussion of the ‘Who, What, and Where’ of special education. Greater discussion is needed in the field about special education’s purpose or ‘Telos,’ the importance of its legal mandates, and the ‘why,’ or the rationale special education uses in promoting socially just outcomes for students with disabilities and their families. In this issue, we hope to capture some of the essence of what special education is all about and reinvigorate discussions surrounding its future direction.

The field of special education has undergone various changes over time, driven by debates and critiques from different sources. For example, in the 1980s, the Regular Education Initiative (REI) and various books and articles advocated for the integration of special and general education, leading to the full inclusion movement (FIM) of the 1990s and subsequent decades. In the 1990s, there was a focus on ‘best practices’ in special education, and the late 1990s and 2000s emphasized accountability and the implementation of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) for academic and behavioral interventions. Currently, the era of inclusion is characterized by a global emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and disability studies in education (DSE).

Special education is once again at a crossroads regarding its purpose and nature. Foundational principles guiding the provision of special education services are being reexamined across many fields of study, and debates are arising regarding who should be identified as having a disability, how services should be provided, and where they should take place. Additionally, discussions surround the nature of research, the knowledge base supporting practices and services (especially the meaning of ‘evidence-based’), and the appropriate delivery of those practices.

Challenges to special education have emerged in the past, such as the REI of the 1980s and other attempts to integrate special and general education. In particular, we continue to be skeptical about the more radical forms of the inclusion movement. Full inclusion has often been driven by ideological concerns that view special education as exclusionary, with some reformers advocating for full bodily inclusion of all students in general education settings and seeking to eliminate completely the options regarding where special educational services are provided. The requirements of current federal special education law include free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the individual, specialized instruction, and placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) chosen from a full continuum of alternative placements (CAP).

Moreover, there has been a push for systems change and whole-school equity-based full inclusion. Some advocates propose reforming the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) into a Title I program with a focus on full inclusion of all individuals with disabilities. This supposedlaligns with the alleged goal of promoting equitable educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities. This iteration of full inclusion, promoted currently under the SWIFT (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation) framework, incorporates a DSE-driven, postmodern version of fully inclusive education that integrates MTSS, PBIS, universal design for learning (UDL), and disability studies (DS and DSE). The goal of such change is to redefine disabilities and promote a postmodern version of full inclusion. A key part of this framework is the social model of disability, which underlies the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) publications on education. Documents of the CRPD and UNESCO largely oppose special education as represented by IDEA. This social model has influenced anti-interventionist positions within disability communities worldwide. Although the postmodern version of full inclusion incorporates appealing aspects of social change (e.g., DEI) and response to intervention (RTI), the ultimate intent is to replace special education with something else.

Our special issue’s contributors delve into each of these areas in more detail, discussing the purpose of special education, the history and problems it has addressed, and the importance of law, rational inquiry, and empirical research. Some explore the erosion of the scientific perspective in special education due to social and cultural relativism, which has led to skepticism regarding the value of science in achieving socially just outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

In the first article, The Telos of Special Education: A Tripartite Approach, Anastasiou et al. describe the purpose of special education as consisting of three main functions subsumed under an overall purpose; to provide special educational services to students whose disabilities whose impairments adversely affect their learning.

Yell and Bradley, in the second article, describe the federal law, how and why it is critically important, and how it benefits the education of children and youth with disabilities. For good reasons, the law includes components that disallow needless separate placements of youngsters with educational disabilities, yet protects the options of separate, specialized, and dedicated placements that educators and parents agree are necessary for the most appropriate education of the individual.

Third, Scott and Nelson urge special educators to rely on science and inquiry in the Enlightenment tradition. They provide an overview of the foundational relationship of science and special education, which has been eroded through a social movement undermining the scientific perspective and leading us toward and unproductive relativism.

The fourth article by Pennington and Travers explains how the law and science are important for appropriate education of individuals with severe disabilities. They explain what the Telos of special education means for this population in particular.

In the fifth article, Crockett and Martin envision an optimistic future for special education. They describe the history of special education, the problems it attempted to address, and the politics around its establishment. They point out that as the 50th anniversary of IDEA approaches there is an important historical perspective to consider as to why we provide special education and why we advance it through rational inquiry.

Finally, Hallahan provides a commentary on the issues raised by the other articles in this special issue. He concludes that loss of focus on the IEP and the replacement of science with ideology could lead to the destruction of special education.

In conclusion, this special issue aims to remind the field of special education about its purpose or ‘Telos,’ the importance of its legal mandates, and the original enthusiasm for promoting socially just outcomes for students with disabilities and their families through reliable scientific inquiry. It seeks to capture the essence of what special education is all about, reinvigorate discussions surrounding its future, and steer us away from a dark future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).