Special Education

Special education encompasses a group of students who are in need of extra assistance in the classroom for various reasons. In the past, and to this day, there is a large societal influence on this particular aspect of education. Everyone seems to have an opinion on how children with disabilities should be educated. The common debate revolves around whether they should be in the “regular” classroom or segregated in their own classrooms. Through research, there seems to be a continuous debate centered around the societal thoughts. Looking through several sources along with a couple annual report of the school board from the early years of special education, it can be determined the special education is complex and needs to be considered under multiple perspectives. The evolution of this form of education includes both attitude changes, as well as major policy alterations. As complex as this topic is, education is simple in the terms that every child should have the right and opportunity to be educated, regardless their mental capabilities. Looking at stereotypes and what teachers, along with parents thought about the education of these children, played a role in the policy changes, as well as the classroom and teaching expectations, which all lead to the considerable attitude shift.

It was seen in both the Forty-Seventh and Forty-Eighth Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia, that the removal and segregation of the “retarded pupils” was best for the teachers as well as the “normal” students.[1] This was the early stages of special education in years of 1917-1919, and there was little to no research on how to properly educate or what the benefits were to inclusive education. With limited knowledge in this area of education, separation seemed best, with the interest of the “normal” children as priority, as it was easier for the teachers to provide them with the best education possible if they were “all of approximately equal mental ability.”[2] At this time, there was very little knowledge on how to properly educate these children, or simply understanding them which made it hard for teachers to maintain classroom control especially with societal concerns. There was a major societal component that encompassed special education, as society saw these children as “infectious” which increased further acts of segregation for the protection of the “normal” children. Josephine Dauphinee was an influential part of the program, and was considered knowledgeable in this area of education which allowed for her to take advantage of many, due to her position.

Josephine Dauphinee was a dominant figure in the Vancouver School System from 1911-1941, and her work continues to be debated by historians to this day. It can be argued that what she did created great advances in this area of education, but it can also be suggested that she took advantage of her position and the support she received, to go beyond the measures necessary. Her views on children with disabilities became the views for most of society, because of the position she held. During her time with the Vancouver school system, the advances she made in creating more classrooms and providing an environment for these children to learn with their capabilities, could be praised, but it could also be seen as a maladaptive approach to educating these children, as it completely segregates them from other children. Due to the amount of research that has been done since those early years, it has now been found that both parties, “normal” and children with needs, benefit from being in the same classroom.

Josephine was an advocate for eugenics, and she went beyond teaching and supported the sterilization of children with disabilities, and stated “They have not the mentality…[to] shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood. Belonging as they do to defective families, the taint is almost certain to be passed on to their children. If the Province adopts the policy of sterilization these children should be sterilized.”[3] This is strongly debated by historians, on whether or not she could make this call, and if it negatively influenced the high pedestal people placed her on. Being involved in eugenics was another way she used her position to take advantage of people. Eugenics was a practice during the early 1900s and it served the purpose of eliminating certain characteristics from being reproduced in society. It was a way to cleanse society and an attempt to only have dominant characteristics in society. The feeble-minded, as these children were classified as, not only segregated them, but deemed them capable only of certain aspects in society, not giving them the opportunity to grow or develop beyond their predetermined capabilities. Eugenics was a way to make sure society was only filled with “normal” people, and as the 1920s continued, “Dauphinee’s energies were increasingly devoted to a goal beyond her teaching, the passage of a sexual sterilization act for subnormals as had already been done in Alberta.”[4] Cleansing society of certain traits or characteristics was due to the lack of understanding, which created overwhelming stereotypes.

As the stereotypes and the societal thoughts and opinions increased and circulated over the years, there was a significant amount of focus and debate on the curriculum taught to these children with exceptionalities. The idea of what these children were capable of and what they should be taught, originated from the work of Josephine Dauphinee. In the classes that she managed, it was suggested that their curriculum was “very traditional and highly sex segregated.”[5]  Social control and only preparing the children for what they teachers deemed them capable of in society was what they were taught.[6] Stereotypes have the ability to alter perspectives and opinions in a way that through history and the expansion of knowledge, they become crazy. The common misleading beliefs of these children consisted of them being dangerous for the other children to be around, due to the fact they were “infectious” or that they were delinquents.

As stated above there were several reasons these children were segregated or why parents felt their children were not safe in the same classrooms. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s there were beliefs that these children were ill and could contaminate one of the other students. It was suggested by Nic Clarke that “attempts were made to segregate mentally deficient children from their “normal” peers in order to prevent them from “infecting” the “fit” with their “defective” characteristics[7]. There was a limited amount of accepted research done on these children and because of the influential societal uncertainties, these children were labelled as something they were not. “Children with mental disabilities were seen as a social threat that had to be isolated like a contagious disease.”[8] This was an overpowering belief of Josephine which lead into the societal ideas of these children, which then lead to the varying levels of mistreatment that appeared in many aspects of their lives.

Delinquency was another common misconception of children with disabilities in the early 1920s, and that institutionalizing them would decrease that behaviour. Through research, it can be suggested that these children simply needed a form of socialization, and an understanding of societal standards and it was suggested later in the 1900s that the classroom is a social environment and that the children learn more than just the curriculum but it also aids in their learning.[9] The social development in classroom has been seen as increasingly beneficial and opposes Josephine Dauphinee and society’s early 1900s idea of “that the special classes had a social mission to curb delinquency and youth crime in order to produce good citizens.”[10] Reducing the delinquent seemed to be a substantial goal in Josephinee’s work, which strongly correlates with her desired to “remove from our midst these unfortunates.”[11]

Along with the stereotypes, the extra expenses required to provide education to children with disabilities is a continuous theme through history, and in most cases, the cost was irrelevant as the right to education was more important. It was suggested in the Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia in the school year of 1917-1918 that “this segregation of retarded pupils will greatly increase the cost of education, but if properly managed, it will do much to increase the efficiency of the schools”[12] School system policies in Canada, in connection the special education, date back to 1910 when “Toronto had begun classifying subnormal children by 1910.”[13] It wasn’t until the late 1970s-early 1980s school boards across Canada made it increasingly accepted that children with exceptionalities be educated.[14] This policy gave all children the right to an education, regardless their capabilities. Prior to this policy addition, there was “steady growth in schools’ populations and particularly in special education programs” during the years of 1956 and 1966.[15] This year was important for the school year but the “1968-1969 school year” was the year a special education division was created within the Department of Education”[16] These years were very important in the special education because it gave them their own voice and they could advocate for what the children apart of this program needed.

In connection to the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, it was stated “that any child, physically, mentally or socially disadvantaged, shall receive the treatment, education and special care required by his state or situation.”[17] This was later applied to the policies of the school system, which allowed for all children to receive an education despite the cost, because it was now a right of the child.

Parents play the most influential role in their child’s life, as they know them and their needs best. Before much research was done in connection to these children there is more knowledge and support that comes along with it. This support is extremely beneficial to parents because having a child with disabilities has been suggested as difficult through more recent research. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, the knowledge of children with exceptionalities was lacking, leading to the uncertainty and high stress reality of parenting. It can be seen through research that these parents simply did not know how to care for their children efficiently, which could lead to the suggest that they would follow whatever norms, or whatever was suggested by a professional such as Josephine Dauphinee. The institutionalization and sterilization would have just seemed like an appropriate way of dealing with the situation during that time. What we see now, that research has been done in this area of study, that even though these children are not as mentally capable as their peers, does not mean they can be treated in a dehumanizing way. It has also been determined and proven false that these children were not “contagious” and do not necessarily pass characteristics on. The institutionalization and especially the sterilization was an abuse of power at the time and should not have been a part of life for these children, and been connected to their education.

In connection to further research and development in the area of special education it was determined that parents play a helpful role in advocating for their child’s needs in an educational setting, and that it is not only impactful for their child but also for the teachers. This recent phenomenon of parents being involved with the decision making of their child’s education, has been an important shift. Not only has the involvement of parents who have the children with needs being influential, but having the other parents involved in what is happening in the classroom proves to be beneficial. It is suggested by Csapo and Goguen that “very often, parents lack information concerning handicapped children and they may express negative reactions toward integrated services.”[18] This is key to understanding the stereotypes of the past, because other parents may not fully understand a child with a disability and create an false impression of what that child is like, leading to the fear of their child interacting with them. Due to the lack of research and knowledge of these children, the stereotypes and fears escalated.

Despite the original thought of segregation and how it was beneficial to all children, as research has continued, that theory has now been proven to be the opposite and that it is actually beneficial for all children to have inclusive education. With the further research showing that, “inclusive classrooms are complex environments in which children’s academic abilities, personalities, physical and sensory abilities, and social skills interact with those of the teacher and their peers and are brought to bear on their attempts to master the curriculum.”[19] The complexity inclusive classroom contains many advantages and disadvantages. It was just recently determined that these types of classrooms as positively impactful on all children, as the teaching methods and styles are required to change in help all students. Andrews suggests, “Listening to how children respond to curricular tasks”, as well as “teaching as conversation with children around the topics we call the curriculum”, are suggested through recent research on classroom management and teaching styles, to help with the curriculum inclusion.[20] Not only is the presentation of the curriculum crucial but it has been found that the social environment helps all the children in the classroom.

The determination that inclusive classrooms are beneficial to all students involved It has been determined that both children with and without disabilities benefit from being in the same classroom. It was stated by Andrews that “the magnitude of diversity in a classroom is great and instruction that acknowledge diversity is believed to optimize children’s progress in school.”[21] This is suggested as the social environment in the classroom is helpful in having the children engage with children who might not have the same mental capacity as them, and learning how to properly navigate that. Research has been done, on the idea of children with disabilities being successful in inclusive classroom due to striving to be completely tasks with other students or teachers. Through psychology it has been determined that there is a zone of proximal development, and it is especially beneficial in classrooms such as inclusive ones. The definition of this zone is, “the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.”[22] This also plays into the social aspect of the classroom as the children with disabilities strive to work with other children and to fit in the best they can.

The progress that special education has made from the late 1800s to the mid to late 1900s, has been substantial and it continues to have a lasting impact on all the children that are involved in inclusive classrooms. Mainstreaming and normalization are two of the leading concepts when it comes to special education. “Mainstreaming is a term used to describe the trend toward integrating the mildly handicapped as much as possible into the regular classroom.”[23] Integration continues to be the debate of special education, because society has their opinions about how long or what subjects children with disabilities should partake in with other children. Mainstreaming is continuing to be support and put into schools and example would be “British Columbia supports the concept of mainstreaming, that is whenever possible and appropriate, children should be educated in the least restrictive setting. It is believed that exceptional children benefit from experiences with “normal” children and that “normal children” benefit as well. The province recognize that total integration is not possible for all exceptional children.”[24] It is suggested by schools that not all children with disabilities will be able to fully integrate and that is where normalization comes into play. “Normalization…tends to be used by those concerned with the profoundly handicapped. Normalization is a reaction against institutionalized services and tends toward integrating as completely as possible the profoundly handicapped within local community services.”[25] Both of these integration concepts are important and it is also important to have teachers and supports in place so that integration can occur successfully. It has been proven that “teachers alone do not have the resources necessary to maintain integrated services successfully”[26], and this is why the supports are needed, as they usually lack training in how to manage children with needs, let alone a classroom with both “normal” children and children with disabilities.

This creates a big task for teachers, leading to the numerous ways of teaching and having different teachers who are more equipped to deal with children with disabilities. “Regular” classroom teachers are working together with special education teachers as “many regular classroom teachers tend to lack formal training in special education. This results in both a lack of conceptual knowledge about the various special education categories and in an inability to differentiate among them. Such knowledge gaps in regular classroom teachers translates into an inability to spot salient characteristics of various special needs students and, therefore to understand and accommodate their respective problems in instruction.”[27] With this being said special education teachers are able to fill the gaps and assist the teacher in how to adequately present the curriculum to the varying levels of mental capabilities in the classroom. In the early 1900s it was suggested that, “the segregation of retarded children is bound to affect beneficially to work of the regular classes and make possible more effective teaching therein.”[28] This was one of the ideas behind why it was helpful to separate the children, which over time would be proven false. Teaching has continued to enhance and adapt to the different students that come, and it has come a long way from complete segregation and the idea that children with disabilities need to be completely separated and taught by only certain teachers. It was suggested in the Vancouver School Board in the early 1900s that “female special-class teachers were the solution for feeble-minded schoolchildren who clogged the educational machinery to the determent of normal children, and whose social vulnerability, it was believed, made them candidates for special institutional and school facilities. They needed “sympathy, pity, love and kindness,” qualities that could only be found in caring women teachers.”[29] This idea would eventually dissolve as the gender stereotypes shifted and as the evolution of special education occurred. It was not necessary for these children to be completely segregated, as more research was done.

This area of education is complex requires a great deal of planning and organization, as well as the involvement of many. It was proven that parents play an important role as advocates for what their child needs. It was also determined that not only were inclusive classroom beneficial for the child with the disability, but also for the children who were deemed “normal”. The social environment of the classroom has more of an impact than is realized, and it plays into the success of not only inclusion but the education of all children. Teachers are rather important in this process of learning and it has been determined that they need assistance in order to successfully educate the children in their classrooms. Parent advocates are increasingly prominent as knowledge of their child and their needs increases they are better able to help them, and no need to follow societal thoughts. The change in attitudes and desire to keep these children with other children as much as possible, lead special education in a direction that encourages more successfully school and learning experiences.

 

Bibliography

Andrews, Jac, eds. Teaching Students with Diverse Needs: Elementary Classroom. Ontario, ON:  Nelson Canada, 1996.

Clarke, Nic. “Sacred Daemons: Exploring British Columbian Society’s Perceptions of “Mentally Deficient” Children, 1870-1930.” In Bringing Children and Youth into Canadian History, by Mona Gleason and Tamara Myers, 288-306. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Csapo, Marg, and Leonard Goguen. Special Education Across Canada: Issues and Concerns for the ‘80s. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Development and Research, 1980.  

Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1917-1918 By the Superintendent of Education. Victoria, B.C. Legislative Assembly. Printed  by William H. Cullin. 1919. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0059868#p0z            2r0f:Annual%20reports%20of%20the%20public%20schools%20in%20British%20Colma

Forty-Eighth Annual Reports of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1918-1919 By the Superintendent of Education. Victoria, B.C. Legislative Assembly. Printed  by William H. Cullin. 1920.    https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0060020#p0z4r0f:special%20classes

Lupart, Judy, Anne Mckeough, and Carolyn Yewchuck, eds. Schools in Transition: Rethinking Regular & Special Education. Ontario, ON: Nelson Canada, 1996

Thomson, Gerald. E. “Remove From our Midst These Unfortunates” Doctorate Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1999.

Thomson, Gerald. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941.” Historical Studies in Education 18, no.1 (Spring 2006): 51-73.

Footnotes

[1] Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1917-1918 By the Superintendent of Education with Appendices. Victoria, B.C. Legislative Assembly. Printed by William H. Cullin. 1919. D 42.

[2] Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1917-1918 By the Superintendent of Education with Appendices. D 42.

[3] Gerald Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’: Josephine Dauphinee and the ‘Subnormal’ Pupils of the Vancouver School System, 1911-1941.” Historical Studies in Education 18,     no.1 (Spring 2006), 70.

[4] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 68.

[5] Gerald. E. Thomson. “Remove From our Midst These Unfortunates” Doctorate Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1999, 179.

[6] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 63-66.

[7] Nic, Clarke. “Sacred Daemons: Exploring British Columbian Society’s Perceptions of “Mentally Deficient” Children, 1870-1930.” In Bringing Children and Youth into Canadian History, by Mona Gleason and Tamara Myers. Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2016, 299.

[8] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 52.

[9] Jac, Andrews eds. Teaching Students with Diverse Needs: Elementary Classroom. Ontario, ON: Nelson Canada, 1996, 70.

[10] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 68.

[11] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 52.

[12] Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1917-1918 By the Superintendent of Education with Appendices. D 42

[13] Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 56.

[14] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 176.

[15] Marg Csapo and Leonard Goguen. Special Education Across Canada: Issues and Concerns for the ‘80s. Vancouver, BC: Centre for Human Development and Research, 1980, 7.

[16] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 6.

[17] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 176.

[18] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 205.

[19] Andrews, Teaching Students with Diverse Needs,63.

[20] Andrews, Teaching Students with Diverse Needs, 68-69.

[21] Andrews, Teaching Students with Diverse Needs, 63.

[22] Andrews, Teaching Students with Diverse Needs,206.

[23] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 202.

[24] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 12.

[25] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 202.

[26] Csapo and Goguen. Special Education Across Canada, 205.

[27] Judy Lupart, Anne Mckeough, and Carolyn Yewchuck, eds. Schools in Transition: Rethinking Regular & Special Education. Ontario, ON: Nelson Canada, 1996, 204.

[28] Forty-Eighth Annual Report of the Public Schools of the Province of British Columbia 1918-1919 By the Superintendent of Education with Appendices. Victoria, B.C. Legislative Assembly. Printed by William H. Cullin. 1920, A 24-25.

[29]  Thomson. “‘Through no fault of their own’”, 56.