Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:52:38.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professionalization as a Policy Choice: British Special Education in Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

David L. Kirp
David L. Kirp
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access

Abstract

Policies may be characterized in several distinct and competing ways: as best resolved by professional expertise, as fit for political determination, as properly treated in terms of legal rights, as appropriately subject to bureaucratic norms, or as sensibly left to market determination. The consequences of the choice among these frameworks is apparent in contrasting the British and American approaches to a particular policy issue, the education of handicapped children. That analysis reveals the utility of maintaining a policy scheme which builds in a tension among the competing frameworks.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , January 1982 , pp. 137 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The discussion of frameworks borrows at least in spirit from other and very diverse attempts to examine the implications of choosing among ways of ordering the world, including: Barry, Brian, Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970)Google Scholar; Sherwin, Michael, Logic of Explanation in Psychoanalysis (New York: Academic Press, 1969)Google Scholar; Lindblom, Charles, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977)Google Scholar; Shklar, Judith, Legalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964)Google Scholar; Thompson, E. P., Whigs and Hunters (New York: Pantheon Books, 1975)Google Scholar; Foucault, Michel, Madness and Civilization (New York: Vintage Books, 1973)Google Scholar; Diesling, Paul, Five Types of Decision and Their Social Conditions (Urbana: Illinois Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Edelman, Murray, Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail (New York: Academic Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Kline, Morris, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Polayni, Michael, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Lindblom, Charles and Cohen, David, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).Google Scholar

2 The particular case of thalidomide victims is analyzed in depth in Bradshaw, Jonathai, The Family Fund: An Initiative in Social Policy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).Google Scholar

3 See for example, Bardach, Eugene, The Implementation Game (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Hargrove, Erwin, The Missing Link: The Study of Implementation in Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1975)Google Scholar; Lipsky, Michael, Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage, 1980).Google Scholar

4 For thoughtful treatments of this tension between legalism and bureaucratic norms, see Kagan, Robert, Regulatory Justice (New York: Russell Sage, 1969)Google Scholar, and Nonet, Philippe, Administrative Justice (New York: Russell Sage, 1967).Google Scholar

5 See generally, Chubb, John, The Politics of Energy: Interest Groups and the Bureaucracy (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

6 On the spread of legal norms, see Selznick, Philip, Law, Society, and Industrial Justice (New York: Russell Sage, 1969).Google Scholar On deregulation, see Bardach, Eugene and Kagan, Robert, Going by the Book: Enforcement of Protective Regulation (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Schultze, Charles, Public Use of Private Interest (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1977)Google Scholar; Wilson, James Q., ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York: Basic Books, 1980).Google Scholar

7 The term is drawn from Bell, Daniel, The Cultural Contradiction of Capitalism (New York: Basic Books, 1976).Google Scholar

8 The discussion of British special education policy rests heavily on interviews with key figures in the fields. These interviews assume special importance because of the paucity of relevant writing. In most instances, interviewees were unwilling to be quoted for the record, and for that reason specific interviews are not cited in the notes. Those interviewed include: Naomi Angeli, Children's Legal Centre; John Bagley, Principal, Department of Education and Science (DES); John Banks, Assistant Secretary, DES; Professor Tessa Blackstone, Institute of Education, University of London; W. K. Brennan, former Assistant Education Officer for Special Education, Inner London Education Authority (ILEA); Kenneth Burgin, Principal, Economic Analysis, DES; Geoffrey Cockerill, former Undersecretary, DES; George Cooke, Vice-Chairman, Warnock Committee, Secretary General of Society of Education Officers, former Chief Education Officer, Lincolnshire; Dr. D.M.C. Dale, Institute of Education, University of London; John Fish, Staff Inspector for Special Education, Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI); Doreen Flint, National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults; Richard Gray, The Spastics Society; John Hedger, Assistant Secretary, DES, and Secretary to the Warnock Committee; Dr. Seamus Hegarty, National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough; Professor Jeffrey Jowell, Faculty of Law, University College, University of London; Dr. Harry Judge, Department of Education, Oxford University; Professor Maurice Kogan, Department of Government, Brunei University; Peter Litton, Undersecretary, DES; Eric Lord, HMI; Stuart Maclure, Editor, Times Educational Supplement; Bert Massey, Royal Association for Disablement and Rehabilitation (RADAR); Peter Mitchell, RADAR; Dr. Peter Mortimore, head of educational research, ILEA; Peter Newell, Advisory Centre for Education; Patricia Pearce, parent governor, Alexander Priory, London; Morag Plank, Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped (CMH); Philipa Russell, Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children; Stanley Segal, Ravenswood Village Community, Berkshire; Tony Smythe, National Association for Mental Health; Barry Taylor, Chief Educational Officer, Somerset; Felicity Taylor, education writer, London; Winifred Tumin, parent member of Warnock Committee; Lord Vaizey, professor, Brunei University; Mary Warnock, Chairman of Warnock Committee, and senior research fellow at St. Hughes College, Oxford; Professor Klaus Wedell, Institute of Education, University of London; Shirley Williams, former Secretary of State, DES; Allison Wortheimer, Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped; Lady Janet Young, Minister of State, DES. Marleen Fouché assisted with the interviewing.

9 Public Law No. 94–142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975), codified at 20 USC §§1401–1461.

10 Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People (London: H.M.S.O., 1978) [here after referred to as Warnock Report].

11 Special Needs in Education (London: H.M.S.O., 1980) [hereafter referred to as White Paper].

12 The historical material is drawn primarily from Warnock Report (fn. 10), 8–36, and Pritchard, D. G., Education and the Handicapped: 1760–1960 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963).Google Scholar

13 Report of the Joint Departmental Commission on Mental Deficiency (London: H.M.S.O., 1929).

14 Rowan, Patricia, What Sort of Life? (Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research, 1980).Google Scholar

15 Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Problems Relating to Partially Sighted Children (London: H.M.S.O., 1934); Report of the Committee of Enquiry into Problems Relating to Children with Defective Hearing (London: H.M.S.O., 1968); Report of the Joint Departmental Commission on Mental Deficiency (London: H.M.S.O., 1929).

16 Education Act (1944), 7 and 8 George VI, C. 31 (London: H.M.S.O.).

17 Hansard, vol. 398, col. 703 (March 21, 1944).

18 Special Education Treatment (London: H.M.S.O., 1946).

19 The Handicapped Pupils and Special Schools Regulations (London: H.M.S.O.,1959).

20 Staffing of Special Schools and Classes, Circular 4–73 (London: H.M.S.O., 1973).

21 Warnock Report (fn. 10), 22; White Paper (fn. 11), 8.

22 Warnock Report (fn. 10), 121.

23 Units for Partially Hearing Children (London: H.M.S.O., 1966); Diagnostic and Assessment Units (London: H.M.S.O., 1968).

24 Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children (London: H.M.S.O., 1955).

25 Behavioural Units (London: H.M.S.O., 1978) 42.

26 Staffing of Special Schools and Classes (fn. 20).

27 See generally, Keith-Lucas, Bryan and Richards, Peter G., A History of Local Government in the Twentieth Century (London: Alien & Unwin, 1978)Google Scholar; Jennings, Robert E., Education and Politics (London: Batsford, 1977).Google Scholar

28 The Discovery of Children Requiring Special Education and the Assessment of Their Needs, Circular 2/75 (London: H.M.S.O., 1975).

29 Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, Elizabeth II, C. 52 (London: H.M.S.O.); The Last to Come In (London: H.M.S.O., 1975).

30 See Kirp, David, Doing Good by Doing Little: Race and Schooling in Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979).Google Scholar

31 Glennerster, Howard, “The Determinants of Social Expenditure,” in Booth, Timothy, ed., Planning for Welfare: Social Policy and the Expenditure Process (Oxford: Basil Blackstone and Martin Robertson, 1979), 3, 12.Google Scholar

32 On interest-group activity generally, see Finer, S. E., Anonymous Empire (London: Pall Mall, 1958)Google Scholar; Wooton, Graham, Interest Groups (Englewoocl Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970).Google Scholar

33 For a general treatment of these questions, see de Smith, Stanley A., Judicial Review of Administrative Action (London: Stevens, 1973 ed.)Google Scholar; Wade, Harold, Administrative Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977 ed.).Google Scholar The British and American approaches to “making” law are contrasted in Hart, H.L.A., “American Jurisprudence Through English Eyes: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream,” Georgia Law Review, XI (September, 1977), 969–91.Google Scholar

34 See, e.g., Bradbury v. Enfield London Borough Council (1967), I WLR 131.

35 Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1967), 3 WLR 64.

36 Annual Report of School Medical Service: Numbers of Cases, 1944–1970 (London: H.M.S.O., 1970).

37 Titmuss, , “Welfare Rights, Law, and Discretion,” Political Quarterly, XLII (April-June 1971), 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 See generally, Griffiths, John, The Politics of the Judiciary (London: Fontana, 1977).Google Scholar Compare Thompson (fn. 1), 258–69.

39 See, e.g., Prosser, Tony, “Politics and Judicial Review: The Atkinson Case and Its Aftermath,” Public Law (Spring 1979), 59–83.Google Scholar

40 On the professionalization of social services, see Friedson, Eliot, Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care (New York: Atherton, 1970)Google Scholar; Vinter, Robert, “Analysis of Treatment Organizations,” in Hasenfeld, Yehaskel and English, Richard, eds., Human Service Organizations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974), 33Google Scholar; Berlant, Jeffrey, Professions and Monopoly: A Study of Medicine in the United States and Great Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Hughes, Everett, Men and Their Work (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Larson, Magali, The Rise of Professionalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Wilensky, Harold, “The Professionalization of Everyone?” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70 (September 1964), 133–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar With respect to child policy and professionals, see Kahn, Alfred J. and Kammerman, Sheila B., Child Care Programs in Nine Counties: A Report (Washington, D.C.: D.H.E.W., 1976).Google Scholar

41 See generally, Kogan, Maurice, Educational Policy Making (London: Allen & Unwin, 1975)Google Scholar; Locke, Michael, Power and Politics in the School System (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974).Google Scholar

42 See Henry, Jules, Pathways to Madness (New York: Random House, 1971)Google Scholar; Edgerton, Robert, Cloaks of Competence: Stigma in the Lives of the Mentally Retarded (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).Google Scholar

43 See Bradshaw (fn. 2).

44 See, e.g., Half Our Futures (Newsom Report) (London: H.M.S.O., 1963); Report of the Committee on Higher Education (Robbins Report) (London: H.M.S.O., 1961–63); A New Partnership for Our Schools (Taylor Report) (London: H.M.S.O., 1977).

45 Children and Their Primary Schools (London: H.M.S.O., 1967).

46 On the power of the British civil service generally, see Smith, Geoffrey and Polsby, Nelson, British Government and Its Discontents (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 144–68.Google Scholar

47 Warnock Report (fn. 10).

48 Warnock Report (fn. 10), 123.

49 In citing the report of the Schools Council Project, “The Curriculum for Slow Learners,” the Warnock Committee recognized this weakness in the curriculum, yet it made nothing of it. Warnock Report (fn. 10), 219.

50 Education Act (1976), Elizabeth II, C. 81 (London: H.M.S.O., 1976).

51 See generally, Floud, Jean and Halsey, A. H., Social Class and Educational Opportunity (London: Heineman, 1956).Google Scholar

52 Galloway, David and Goodwin, Carole, Educating Slow-Learning and Maladjusted Children: Integration or Segregation? (London: Longman, 1979).Google Scholar

53 Dale, D.M.C., “Educating Deaf and Partially Hearing Children Individually in Ordinary Schools,” The Lancet, No. 884 (October 21, 1978)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Milligan, Martin, “Accepting Blind Children in Ordinary Schools—Everyone Benefits,” Where, No. 142 (October 1978), 275.Google Scholar

54 See Coard, Bernard, How the West Indian Child Is Made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System (London: New Beacon, 1971).Google Scholar

55 Times Educational Supplement, February 25, 1977.

56 Warnock Report (fn. 10), 109.

57 Times Educational Supplement, June 25, 1978. See generally, Sarason, Seymour, The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Boston: Allyn antl Bacon, 1970).Google Scholar

58 Data concerning the number of children ascertained as maladjusted come from Department of Education and Science, “Educational Provision of Handicapped Pupils,” (DES Statistics of Education), for the relevant years; the source of the 1979 figure is White Paper (fn. 11).

59 Behavioural Units (fn. 25), 49; “Ace Survey: Disruptive Units,” Where, Vol. 159 (June 1980), 10.

60 Newell, Peter, “Sin Bins: The Integration Argument,” Where, Vol. 160 (July/August 1980), 8.Google Scholar

61 Lewis, and Vulliamy, , “Warnock or Warlock? The Sorcery of Definitions: The Limitations of the Report on Special Education,” Educational Review, XXXII (February 1980), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 Times Educational Supplement, June 23, 1978.

63 Times Educational Supplement, May 26, 1978.

64 Hansard, April 7, 1980. For a discussion of the political history of this legislation see Bull, David, “School Admissions: A New Appeals Procedure,” Journal of Socia Welfare, VII (September 1980), 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 On the possibility of capitalizing on the contraction of the educational system to accomplish good educational ends, see Judge, Harry, “After the Comprehensivi Revolution: What Sort of Secondary Schools?” Oxford Review of Education, v (June 1979), 137–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 This history is recounted in Sarason, Seymour and Doris, John, Educational Handicap, Public Policy, and Social History: A Broadened Perspective on Mental Retardation (New York: Free Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Rothman, David, The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar; Mercer, Jane and Richardson, John, “‘Mental Retardation’ as a Social Problem,” in Hobbs, Nicholas, ed., Issues in the Classification of Children, II (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975), 131Google Scholar; Gaylin, Willard, Glasser, Ira, Marcus, Steven, and Rothman, David, Doing Good: The Limits of Benevolence (New York: Pantheon, 1978)Google Scholar; Marvin Lazerson, “The Origins of Special Education, 1890–1940,” paper prepared for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (Stanford University, 1980).

67 Milofsky, Carl, Special Education: A Sociological Study of California Programs (New York: Praeger, 1976).Google Scholar

68 The references are collected in Kirp, “Schools as Sorters: The Constitutional and Policy Implications of Student Classification,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 121 (April 1973), 705–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 See Abeson, Alan and Zettel, Jeffrey, “The End of the Quiet Revolution: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975,” Exceptional Children, XLIV (Winter 1977), 44.Google ScholarKirp, David, Buss, William, and Kuriloff, Peter, “Legal Reform of Special Education: Empirical Studies and Procedural Proposals,” California Law Review, Vol. 62 (January 1974), 40–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neal, David, “The Legalization of Special Education,” paper prepared for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (Stanford University, 1980)Google Scholar; Tweedie, Jack, “Federal Reform of Special Education: An Exploration into Policymaking Style,” paper prepared for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (Stanford University, 1980).Google Scholar

70 Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Citizens v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 342 F. Supp. 279, 295 (E.D. Pa. 1972) ; Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 860 (D.D.C. 1972).

71 Larry P. v. Riles, 343 F. Supp. 1306 (N.D. Cal. 1973), aff'd, 502 F. 2d. 963 (9th Cir. 1974).

72 Public Law No. 94–142 (fn. 9).

73 29 U.S.C. §794 (1976).

74 For an empirical confirmation of this proposition, see Weatherly, Richard, Reforming Special Education: Policy Implementation from State Level to Street Level (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979).Google Scholar See also Lasch, Christopher, Haven in a Heartless World (New York: Basic Books, 1979).Google Scholar

75 See Gliedman, John and William Roth for the Carnegie Council on Children, The Unexpected Minority: Handicapped Children in America (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980)Google Scholar; Kirp (fn. 68).

76 See, e.g., Mills v. Board of Education, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).

77 See Kirst, Michael and Bertken, Kay, “Due Process Hearings in Special Education: An Exploration of Who Benefits,” paper prepared for the Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance (Stanford University, 1980).Google Scholar

78 Count of children taken by the states, December 1, 1979. This annual count serves as the basis for allocation of funds appropriated under PL 94–192. Department of Education, The interim Report, Secretarial Task Force on Equal Educational Opportunity for Handicapped Children (Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, 1980).Google Scholar

79 See, e.g., Kirst and Bertken (fn. 77); Kuriloff, Peter, Kirp, David, and Buss, William, When Handicapped Children Go to Court: Assessing the Impact of Legal Reform of Special Education in Pennsylvania, report prepared for the National Institute of Education (1979).Google Scholar

80 See generally, Kirp, David and Yudof, Mark, Educational Policy and the Law (Berkeley: McCutchan, 1982 ed.).Google Scholar

81 See Larry R. v. Riles (fn. 71); Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 446 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D. Pa. 1977), aff'd in part and rev'd and remanded in part, 612 F. 2d. 84 (3rd Cir. 1980), rev'd 49 U.S.L.W. 4363 (1981); Lora v. Board of Education, 456 F. Supp. 1211, 1268 (E.D. N.Y. 1978), rev'd 623 F. 2d. 248 (2d. Cir. 1980).

82 On the importance of trust relationships in the management of schools, see Kirp, David, “Proceduralism and Bureaucracy: Due Process in the School Setting,” Stanford Law Review, XXVIII (May 1976), 841–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Compare Metz, Mary, Classrooms and Corridors: The Crisis of Authority in Desegregated Secondary Schools (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar

83 Budoff, Milton and Orenstein, Alan, “Special Education Appeals Hearings: Their Forum and the Response of the Participants,” in Final Report on Due Process in Special Education: Legal and Human Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: D.H.E.W., 1979).Google Scholar

84 See, e.g., Wolfensberger, Wolf and others, Citizen Advocacy for the Handicapped, Impaired, and Disadvantaged (Washington, D.C.: D.H.E.W. publication No. OS-72–42, 1972).Google Scholar

85 See Edgerton, Robert B., Cloak of Competence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).Google Scholar

86 Dickens's observation, made in Bleak House, is quoted and elaborated upon in Pinker, Robert, The idea of Welfare (London: Heineman, 1979), 3.Google Scholar

87 See, e.g., Reich, Charles, “The New Property,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 73 (April, 1964), 733–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Piven, Frances and Cloward, Richard, Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Pantheon, 1971).Google Scholar

88 See, e.g., Moynihan, Daniel P., Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York: Free Press, 1969).Google Scholar

89 Compare Walzer, Michael, Radical Principles (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 23–53.Google Scholar

90 See, e.g., Titmuss, Richard, Commitment to Welfare (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968)Google Scholar; Pinker, Robert, Social Theory and Social Policy (London: Heineman, 1971).Google Scholar

91 See Burgess, Tyrell and Travers, Tony, Ten Billion Pounds: Whitehall's Takeoven) of the Town Halls (London: Grant Mclntyre, 1980)Google Scholar; McAllister, Richard and Hunter, Davic, Local Government: Death in Our Time (London: Outer Circle Policy Unit 1980).Google Scholar