Are Special Education Programs Unjust to Nondisabled Children?: Justice, Equality, and the Distribution of Education

1998 ◽  
Vol 180 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Nathanson
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Children With Disabilities ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Social Consensus ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Philosophical Standpoint ◽  
The Difference

This article deals in depth with perhaps the most troubling education issue of the day—funding and proper distribution of educational resources. How is the money raised and how is its allocation decided? Can the ideals of both justice and equality be served? Is “extra” spending on behalf of children with special needs justified? Stephen Nathanson raises the central questions and, approaching them from a moral-philosophical standpoint, presents and evaluates the arguments of those who defend extra spending for children with disabilities and those who believe that “unequal” spending violates the principle of justice. Nathanson treats various theories of distributive justice—entitlement, utilitarianism, the “difference principle,” and the “decent level” idea. In focusing on the latter, he contends that social consensus developed around “decent level” may be the touchstone, more helpful than any rationale (or rhetoric) in satisfying the claims of justice and equality.

Justice in a Market Economy

2006 ◽  
pp. 60-76
Author(s):  
Robert A. Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Fair Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice

As we saw from the last two chapters, the ethical IT professional is embedded in contexts of management, organization, and society. Ethical behavior for the IT professional is, therefore, impacted by the ethics of people and institutions in his or her environment. The primary term for ethical institutions is justice.1 In the next three chapters, we will examine the justice of institutions impacting the IT professional. The framework used will be that provided by the works of John Rawls (1999, 2001). Rawls’ work is based on the idea of a social contract, that a justly ordered society is one to which individuals can freely decide to obligate themselves. But our decision will very likely be biased if we base it on our current situation. So Rawls’ major addition is to say that the decision must be made prior to being in society, without knowledge of what our position will be in society, and it will be a decision we will be obligated to stick to and expect others to make and stick to as well. The basic principles for society chosen in this position (which Rawls calls the original position) will be the Principles of Justice. According to Rawls (1999, 2001), there will be two: 1. The First Principle of Justice or Greatest Equal Liberty: Society is to be arranged so that all members have the greatest equal liberty possible for all, including fair equality of opportunity. Each individual has basic liberties which are not to be compromised or traded off for other benefits. Besides the basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and so on, it includes equality of opportunity. Thus society’s rules are not biased against anyone in it and allow all to pursue their interests and realize their abilities. 2. The Second Principle of Justice or the Difference Principle: Economic inequalities in society are justified insofar as they make members of the least advantaged social class, better off than if there were no inequality. The social contract basis for this principle is straightforward: If you are entering a society with no knowledge of your specific place in that society, the Difference Principle guarantees that you will be no worse off than you need to be to keep the society functioning.

A Case Study of Federal Leadership Perspectives on Special Education

2020 ◽  
pp. 002246692090990
Author(s):  
Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill ◽  
Zorka Karanxha ◽  
A. Joy Broughton
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Family Background ◽  
Phenomenological Approach ◽  
Rehabilitation Services ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Time Period ◽  
The U.S

This article is part of an illustrative study of federal leadership in special education based on interviews with persons who served as Assistant Secretaries in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services and Directors of the Office of Special Education Programs. The perspectives cover the time period since the inception of the HEW—Bureau of Education for the Handicapped in 1967 until 2012. A phenomenological approach to interpreting the data revealed that these leaders faced similar barriers in their efforts to implement their vision, that their family background experiences influenced the policies they pursued, that their accomplishments frame major evolutions of the field, and, that their work represents a lifelong commitment to improving education and services for students with disabilities and special needs. We believe what we learned has value not only in helping to understand the challenges and accomplishments that have passed but also in its potential for guiding the future of federal and other legislation protecting the rights of and improving and sustaining the services needed for individuals with disabilities.

Rawls on Global Distributive Justice: A Defence

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 193-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Heath
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
Law Of Peoples ◽  
International Context ◽  
Critical Response ◽  
Global Distributive Justice ◽  
Primary Goods ◽  
The Difference

Critical response to John Rawls's The Law of Peopleshas been surprisingly harsh) Most of the complaints centre on Rawls's claim that there are no obligations of distributive justice among nations. Many of Rawls's critics evidently had been hoping for a global application of the difference principle, so that wealthier nations would be bound to assign lexical priority to the development of the poorest nations, or perhaps the primary goods endowment of the poorest citizens of any nation. Their subsequent disappointment reveals that, while the reception of Rawls's political philosophy has been very broad, it has not been especially deep. Rawls has very good reason for denying that there are obligations of distributive justice in an international context.

Is the Difference Principle a Principle of Justice?

Mind ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol XC (359) ◽  
pp. 415-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
CHRISTINE SWANTON
Keyword(s):  
Difference Principle ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Difference

Property-Owning Democracy and the Difference

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social System ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
State Capitalism ◽  
System Property ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice

AbstractJohn Rawls says: “The main problem of distributive justice is the choice of a social system.” Property-owning democracy is the social system that Rawls thought best realized the requirements of his principles of justice. This article discusses Rawls’s conception of property-owning democracy and how it is related to his difference principle. I explain why Rawls thought that welfare-state capitalism could not fulfill his principles: it is mainly because of the connection he perceived between capitalism and utilitarianism.

“That's Where the Rubber Meets the Road”: The Intersection of Special Education and Dual Language Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 119 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-36
Author(s):  
Sara E. N. Kangas
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Preservice Teachers ◽  
English Language Learners ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Language Education ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Daunting Task

Background English language learners (ELLs) with special needs remain an underresearched student population. Although providing services to these students proves to be a daunting task, bilingual schools are uniquely poised to meet the educational needs of ELLs with special needs. Yet, research has not explored service provision practices in bilingual contexts for ELLs with special needs. Purpose of Study This study examined the service provision practices of a bilingual school for ELLs with special needs and how these practices shaped the educational opportunities of these students. Research Design This study is an ethnographic case study of a charter bilingual elementary school. Data Collection and Analysis Fieldwork lasted for a majority of one academic year with the following data collected: classroom observations, interviews with staff, participation in meetings and informal conversations with staff, and school artifacts. The data were analyzed through an intersectionality framework, examining how disability and primary language resulted in multiple disadvantages for ELLs with special needs. Findings That data analysis revealed how providing services to ELLs with special needs is fraught with challenges and compromises. Specifically, despite the school's commitment to bilingualism, ideological and material conditions in the school worked in concert to restrict the access of ELLs with special needs to bilingual and academic support. The findings also illuminated how in an attempt to provide services, the school was enacting a de facto policy that both disregarded the bilingual development of ELLs with special needs and misappropriated effective models of bilingual and special education. Conclusions/Recommendations The study argues that when schools prioritize language and special education services in parity, educational opportunities for ELLs with special needs will improve. This study also asserts that the educational opportunities of ELLs with special needs are contingent upon the implementation of bilingual and special education programs with fidelity. Thus, to best prepare schools to serve ELLs with special needs, teacher education programs need to dedicate more attention to developing in-service and preservice teachers’ interdisciplinary knowledge about these students and their educational needs and rights.

scholarly journals Investigations of pedagogues' attitudes to inclusive education and to children with disabilities in foreign scientific journals

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-204
Author(s):  
Ol'ga M. Khomutova
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Inclusive Education ◽  
Children With Disabilities ◽  
Social Attitudes ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Special Needs Education

The article presents a bibliometric analysis of the research of international journals "European Journal of Special Needs Education","International Journal of Special Education" and "International Journal of Inclusive Education" published from 2002 to 2018. The journals' selected articles related to the study of attitudes towards inclusive education and children with disabilities. We analysed the amount of publications in accordance with the selected parameters for each journal and for each year separately, their dynamics for the selected period, defined criteria: in terms of geography, category of children, research focus, category of pedagogues, factors affecting social attitudes. We proposed promising areas of study of the problem under study.

scholarly journals Evaluating Parent Participation in Individualized Education Programs by Opinions of Parents and Teachers

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ş. Şenay İlik ◽  
Rukiye Konuk Er
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Special Needs ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Parent Participation ◽  
Individualized Education Programs ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Individualized Education ◽  
Iep Process ◽  
Descriptive Survey

All individuals who are responsible for the education of learners with special needs must actively participate in Individualized Education Programs (IEP). Moreover, IEP is a common ground encouraging educators and parents to work together on an education plan. This study aims to evaluate the opinions of both parents and teachers regarding parent participation in IEP. The qualitative approach was used in this study. To profoundly examine the opinions of parents and special education teachers and to make them explain it in their own words, descriptive survey model, one of the qualitative research methods, was used. Descriptive survey model enables to organize data according to the themes put forward by the research questions and to present it by considering questions and dimensions. The purposive sampling method was used in this study to obtain more detailed information regarding the opinions of special education teachers and parents with children with special needs about the preparation and implementation process of IEP. 22 teachers and 25 parents participated in the study. Data were analyzed through content analysis. It was found that most of the parents do not know anything about IEP. It was also found that parents are not involved in the IEP process and they are not invited by the school/institution. As for the opinions of teachers, it was found that they have some problems about getting the parents to involve in the IEP process. It was seen that teachers are lack of knowledge regarding how to include parents in the IEP process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document