Commentary Reform and Special Education: A Mainstream Perspective
Statements in the extreme are often useful. They may crystallize and clarify the arguments for and against a given position. By outlining the most radical possible consequences of current trends, they help others steer a mainstream course that avoids the shoals of extremity. In this light, Kauffman's (1989) recent analysis of the Regular Education Initiative deserves careful consideration. He has identified some of the rocks that reformers must avoid in charting a new course for special education. Resources must be maintained (Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1989). Perpetual cries for accountability and "excellence" must be met with insistent reminders that excellence cannot be achieved at the expense of equity (Sapon-Shevin, 1987). Important gains in service to children with disabilities cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of innovation (National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1987; Will , 1986). In short, caution is appropriate, perhaps critical, if reformers are not to destroy inadvertently what they seek to improve. Extreme positions may also generate fear and divisiveness. In a manner reminiscent of the protagonist of Shelley's Frankenstein, Kauffman has carefully dug through representative specimens, chosen pieces from each, and created a monster that is frightening to behold. He has gathered the most extreme statements from the most urgent calls for reform (Gartner & Lipsky, 1989; Stainback 8c Stainback, 1988), and even added some o f his own (e.g., "teaching all students well requires that the teacher make relatively minor adjustments of strategy or accommodation for individual differences"; "education outside the regular classroom is not required for anyone"; italics added; p. 258). In so doing, Kauffman has assembled a picture that is startling to anyone concerned about the rights of children with disabilities. Like Shelley's gothic creation, Kauffman's monster is exquisitely drawn, and emotionally affecting. Yet, like that monster, it is ultimately fiction. It seems safe to assert that the education of students served by special education, like the education of all others in the system, is a legitimate target o f reform. It is in the spirit of that reform that several responses to Kauffman's position seem warranted. W e will discuss (a) the appropriateness of the metaphor used to describe