Talk:Special education/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Some potentially relevant journals

Does anyone have any observations to make about the status of any of the following journals:

• British journal of special education

• International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education

• International journal of special education

• Journal for vocational special needs education

• Journal of research in special educational needs

• Journal of special education

• Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation

• Remedial and special education

• Teacher education and special education

• Topics in early childhood special education

If there are no objections to any of them, then I will start searching in them for relevant material for this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Judith. It will be interesting to see what you can find out. A lot of academic journals are behind paywalls. You are lucky to have access. I did come across this Encyclopaedia of Special Education which has recently been published:

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780470373699/home

It has contributors from over 30 countries. Does anyone have access to it? Dahliarose (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was able to get limited access to it and I tried searching inside but couldn't find an entry for "England", "Britain" or "United Kingdom". Meanwhile I have found some other references:

• The Illusion of Full Inclusion J.M. Kauffman and D.P. Hallahan (eds.)
• Implementing Inclusive Education: a Commonwealth guide to implementing Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – By Richard Rieser
• 'Inclusion is more than a place': exploring pupil views and voice in Belfast schools through visual narrative

David Ryan. British Journal of Special Education, v36 n2 p77-84 Jun 2009

The last paper is really informative for this talk page discussion as well as a potential good source for the article. The two ordinary secondary schools described in the article each had an equivalent of a resource room, but each had their own term for it. No such facility was described for the primary school, special school or grammar school. Children had positive feelings about the special rooms. There was no indication of how long they would spend there during a school day. The term "withdrawal" was used, as it often is in UK education contexts; tending to confirm my impression that the norm is for SEN children to be in the mainstream classroom. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Judith for taking the trouble to look at all these sources. I'm curious also about the contentious word "inclusion". The OED has no entry for inclusion in an educational context. My impression from the sources I've looked at is that in England inclusion is used in a much more general sense, ie, we talk of "inclusion in mainstream schools", or "inclusive education" in terms of ensuring that everyone has access to an education (see this example here http://www.csie.org.uk/inclusion/what.shtml). The sources I've looked at (OFSTED, DofE etc) don't indicate for instance whether special needs children in our schools are "fully included" or "partially included", and only seem to distinguish between the types of provision. Perhaps you could let us know how the academic journals define these words. Dahliarose (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples

Dahlia,

I see that you've added the words "in the USA" to a general statement, so that it now reads:

Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models such as response to intervention in the USA are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.

Given that the link to response to intervention is simply one example of improved teaching methods and early intervention programs (that's why it says "such as"), why does it matter what country is associated with the example? I'm sure that we all hope that improved teaching and early intervention are not American-only phenomena, and I think that the unnecessary qualifying statement makes it seem like non-USA schools favor bad teaching methods and letting students struggle and fail before getting them the help they need. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As the sentence previously read the implication was that "response to intervention" is a worldwide concept and something that anyone with a knowledge of special education would be familiar with. You only find out it is specific to the US by clicking on the Wiki link. For the sake of clarity in a general section I think it's better to use general words that are understood by everyone, and make it clear if we are using examples from specific countries. Perhaps on reflection the sentence would read better as: "Additionally, improved teaching methods are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention. A good example of this practice is the response to intervention model in the USA." The problem here again is really related to the choice of sources. The reference used to back up the statement is "Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? D Fuchs, LS Fuchs - Reading Research Quarterly, 2006 – IRA." I don't have access to the book/journal but it is obviously something which is very specific to US schools. Do you have access to the source? If so how is it phrased? Ideally it would be best if we could find a more general reference, but the problem is finding such sources. Dahliarose (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the sentence that way. I read it like this:

Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models (such as response to intervention) are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.

Consequently, it doesn't matter if the example is specific to the USA, the UK -- or Mars: it's just an example. Calling out the national origin of an (IMO) unimportant example misleads the reader into thinking that the entire sentence is USA-specific.

Additionally, it appears that the specific example is not USA-specific anyway, since it is discussed in "response+to+intervention" Canada, "response+to+intervention" the UK, "response+to+intervention" Australia, and "response+to+intervention" New Zealand. So if we're going to do this, we need to say something more like "in every English-speaking country except possibly Ireland". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the example is unimportant then the simplest solution would be to leave it out altogether. We need to stick to actual sources rather than Google searches which can be very misleading. A quick scan through the UK hits gives me references to American books available in the UK. Also a lot of the hits, despite the search being confined to the UK, are from American websites. At present the only source we have for this statement is a US book, and we don't have access to the full text. Dahliarose (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing it. I assume that it was added to WP:Build the web, rather than to help this article.

I'm not sure whether your Google search statement means that you believe no sources to exist, or simply to say that the tens of thousands of hits aren't all entirely non-USA. So in case you missed them, here's a short list of obviously non-US sources that prove that RtI isn't a purely American concept:

• Scholarly paper from Canada [1]
• Scholarly paper from Australia [2][3][4]
• Scholarly paper with UK, USA, and Australian authors [5]
• "The [UK] revised Code of Practice (2001) emphasises three areas... A graduated response to intervention with plans drawn up which are carefully graded and appropriate to the child’s needs" [6]
• See the papers written by Dr Duff at University of York [7]
• UK tutoring outfit that uses RtI [8]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the examples you have cited above are abstracts and I don't have access to the full papers. They only prove the existence of a "response to intervention" model and don't prove that it is a term which is universally recognised. Authors of scholarly papers will be familiar with the various approaches adopted in different countries, and will write their own papers comparing different approaches. The UK code of practice uses the phraseology in a different context. With regard to Dr Duff's papers without seeing the actual papers, it's difficult to pass judgement. It looks like she is evaluating resources worldwide. The "UK" tutoring site is very odd as it uses American spellings (eg, center and program)and American terminology such as school districts (the UK equivalent being education authorities). In the absence of any reliable references to the contrary and for the sake of clarity, I will go ahead and remove the example. Dahliarose (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also -- you state above that the cited paper is "obviously something which is very specific to US schools". What exactly makes it "obvious" to you that the official journal of the International Reading Association is "very specific to US schools"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education

I came across The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education by accident but it would appear to be a most useful resource and one of the few sources which has published numerous studies providing an overview of special needs education in a number of different countries. There are overviews on a country-by-country basis with detailed statistics. I have only skimmed through some of the reports at present. There is no mention of resource rooms. The equivalent European concept is described in one report I read as "the ‘home area system’ – an area that consists of two or three classrooms and where a (small) group of teachers delivers the whole curriculum within a stable environment". The settings are described in terms of the types of provision as in the UK reports (ie, mainstream schools, special schools, and special classrooms in mainstream schools). Inclusion is used in the context of integrating children with disabilities and learning difficulties into mainstream education. The terms "inclusive classroom" and "inclusive education" are commonly used. However, I can find no references to a system of "regular inclusion, partial inclusion and mainstreaming". It seems to me that the reports on this website would be most useful sources for compiling the general section of this article. Have a look and see what you think. Dahliarose (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since an emphasis on the practices of English-speaking countries is reasonable, you might also like to read the UK's Code of Practice. I was surprised to see, for example, that the term IEP (Individual Education Plan) is in common use in the UK.

The 'home area system' sounds much more like an isolated special classroom (or three) -- what the US usually calls a 'self-contained classroom' -- than a set of resources that a student might be sent to use for brief periods of time.

I'm not sure that you've quite grasped the concept of a resource room. The common use looks like this: "Class, it's time for reading. Red group, bring your reading books and join me at the reading table to read aloud. Blue group, please walk quietly to (certified reading specialist) Mrs Smith's room. Yellow and green groups, please stay at your seats and do this assignment; when I'm done with the red group, I'll call the yellow group next, and then the green group. In one hour, we'll be done with reading, and we'll all do our history lesson together."

This is practically the opposite of a small group of teachers (Mrs Smith coordinates her work with the school's entire teaching staff), does not deliver the whole curriculum (Mrs Smith teaches nothing but reading skills all day, and only teaches students with SENs), and it's not in a stable environment (the kids move to different classrooms, depending on their needs).

And, once again, every single time the word "regular" appears in this article, it means "ordinary, typical, normal, or common". It's just plain English, not a special bit of jargon. The term used by proponents just the single word "inclusion" -- not "regular inclusion" or "partial inclusion". These additional descriptive terms are used only to draw a particular distinction between the normal implementation of inclusive education and the unusual implementation of full inclusion. This is rather like aspirin: once upon a time, you could go to the store and buy just aspirin, but now you need to specify whether you want low-dose aspirin, regular strength aspirin, or extra strength aspirin. Once, if you told someone that you wanted aspirin for a headache, they'd know exactly what you wanted. Now, the response is "But which kind of aspirin -- regular or extra strength?" Similarly, once upon a time, if you said your school did inclusive education, they'd know what you meant. Now they'll ask, "But which kind of inclusion -- regular or full?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd already discovered the SENCO code of practice. I'm not sure whether Individual Education Plan or Individual Learning Plan is the correct terminology. Possibly different education authorities will have their own preferred terms. From your description of a US resource room it is clear that there is no equivalent concept in the UK. A standard classroom in the UK would be split up into different groups as you have described, all doing tasks tailored to their ability levels. Children are put in year groups in primary schools (ages five to 11) and have a single teacher for all their lessons for the entire school year. They would not all be sent off to different rooms for specialist reading lessons, and we don't have any "certified reading specialists". There is however a tendency now for primary school children to be put in sets for subjects such as maths and English. Even within sets the children would still be split up into small groups doing different tasks. All secondary schools (ages 11 to 16/18) in the UK have dedicated subject teachers so the pupils move around the school for all their lessons, and will have a different teacher for maths, history, geography, English, etc. Your description of regular and full inclusion seems to be based on your own local knowledge. We just don't make have this distinction in the UK as far as I am aware. I have not found any references to support such a division, and no one else has managed to find any references either. Approximately 20% of children in the UK have special needs. 18% of children with special needs in the UK are educated in mainstream schools. These children do not have any special provision made for them other than the fact that they have a classroom assistant who attends lessons with them. Otherwise they go to exactly the same lessons as everyone else, albeit sometimes they might be put in sets for certain subjects. I don't know whether that counts as "full inclusion" or "partial inclusion" in your terms but the question is never asked. You never hear people in the UK say, as one editor has done on this page "My daughter attends a nursery school and they do full inclusion there", and people don't ask if schools do inclusive education or not. Dahliarose (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If a ten-year-old child needs intensive, skilled instruction to learn how to read (say, due to severe dyslexia), how exactly does that child receive help in the UK? Classroom assistants (who typically have no requirement for university-level education) don't have the necessary training or skills, and there aren't enough hours in the school day for the regular classroom teacher (who has twenty or thirty students to teach) to dedicate an hour to one or two students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Classroom assistants in the UK are often highly educated and are typically mothers who want to work but don't want to work full-time. Provision for dyslexia is however often very poor, and many children, and especially boys, transfer to secondary school without the basic reading and writing skills needed. A former Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, famously removed her dyslexic child from the state system and had him educated privately. [9]

A few following thoughts

unfortunately for the 2globalisation2 thread became too much, and Wikipedia does not allow me to use my text coping strategies (have a look at how i prefer text)

we have just had a change of Government in the UK and the new government will maintaining the old governments web pages outlining education policies, have also added that these web pages may not represent the policies of the new government.

In 2005 our Disability Discrimination Act was amended to include a requirement for all public service providers (including schools) to have in place by the end of academic year 2008 / 2009 a Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy. Each provider had to produce their own policy base on the physical location environment, and the range of disabilities that they may encounter while providing their services. The governement of the day provided guidance documentation, which included a great many web pages including Is Tom disabled? which says that for the purposes of implementation of the DED policy schools should include dyslexia as a communication disability. This does differ from the post school categories of disability, but by then all dyslexics should have a medial diagnosis of the underlying cognitive disability which causes their dyslexic symptom, such as Auditory processing disorder (unfortunately most dyslexia support agencies are about a decade behind current international research regarding the cognitive subtypes of dyslexia) In 2006 the Chairman of the UK parliamentary Education Committee ( a bit like a USA congress committee)announced that the "UK provision of special needs" was not fit for purpose, and the result was a review carried out by John Bercow (now speaker of the UK House of Commons) And there was also a further review of Dyslexia by Jim Rose, which could used its own working model of dyslexia for the purposes of its review.

The UK Human Rights Commission has been involved in monitoring the implementation of DED policies and disability discrimination in general, as well as Racial, Sexual and other forms of discrimination in the UK.

Segregation is not a word used much in the UK in the education system, so may be we should seek an alternative option. dolfrog (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Dolfrog, I'm not quite sure what point you're making. The Ofsted report has just arrived from my son's school and it talks throughout about "children with special educational needs and/or disabilities". I'm giving up on this article for the moment. The text is being changed around so much that one cannot have a rational discussion because you don't know which version is being discussed. Everything I've said has been completely ignored. One editor is only interested in making insulting comments. I note that the article has now been reverted to its previous incarnation with no attempt whatsoever to remove all the US terminology and bias. When I have more time I might have another go at trying to fix it using references from the global sources like Unicef and Unesco that I found that the US editors have completely ignored, presumably because the global descriptions do not conform with the way that the US education system works. I might try and ask for help at WP;Schools or get a request for comment. Dahliarose (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dahliarose The problem in the UK is that the terminology use to describe any of these issues varies from one UK government to another, and the terminology used in the 1980 is varies to the terminology used in the 1990s and the 2000s. Changes in so many related areas have each had influences one change or another. So you are correct we need to describe these issues using general global vocabulary, and there are Special education in the USA and Special education in the United Kingdom articles where the more country specific terms can be used. The point i was trying to make above is that special education in the UK has many strands as you say Ofsted is school inspection body, which is guided by various forms of UK government legislation, and the government provides guidelines to implement this legislation on the Teachernet web site. Since 2009 all schools as public service providers have to comply with the Disability Discrimination ACt 2005 which requires all public service providers to have their own Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy in place. And the government (pre May 2010) included issues such issues as dyslexia to be included as a communication disability for the purposes of implementing this DED policy requirement. The UK Human Rights Commission has been monitoring the progress made by UK universities, and colleges, places of employment and public service provision regarding DED implementation. Which is part of their wider aim of greater disability discrimination awareness, to prevent discrimination against those who have a either visible or invisible disability. Many of those who have an invisible disability are those who need some form of special education support. dolfrog (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Setting is just another term for tracking.

I have brought the textbook, Teachers, Education and Society this weekend. I find the book very informative. The term setting is the same as tracking. Read the first sentence. I removed full inclusion because it does not belong in this section. I will add this with the inclusion article. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we tend to use the word streaming rather than tracking. The word tracking is used for tracking academic progress from one term or one school year to another. Streaming is no longer used or if it is only rarely. In the past children were put in streams according to academic ability. There were then different exams depending on ability. You would have a grammar school stream for the able children who would be expected to go onto university, a middle stream, and a bottom stream for the children who were struggling to keep up. Now all children sit the same exams. Classes are often mixed ability, but with ability sets for specific subjects like maths and English. Your edits are interesting. Have I understood correctly? Are you saying that in the United States inclusion, mainstreaming, etc are actually "tracks" or "streams". If you are "mainstreamed" you are therefore only educated with other "mainstreamed" students? If so it might explain some of the difficulties that the non-US editors have had in understanding the American system. I did wonder too why tracking was included in the See also section of this article. Dahliarose (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The dispute got me interested in this article. According to my source, they said that US does tracking the most compared to other countries. Pretty much at least that's how the US does it. I have seen plenty of students segregated in separate classes and they were never allowed to leave the class. They pretty much stay with their disabled peers the whole time. I'm glad I was happy to help out in making sure article is not in a US view. Sorry about messing up with the setting. It appeared to make sense and I trusted the source. Next time, I should double-check the sources. Can we remove the global tag since the dispute is resolved? I got the impression that the dispute was about the "setting" section. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think school systems that don't do tracking tend to have a more inclusive school system because they encourage a more cooperative learning. At least that's what I see when I read the sources. I don't really like the US way and it would be nice if they can change and follow the way other countries do. The full inclusion looks really stupid and it makes it look like we live in a utopian society which isn't true. I don't know how school systems in the US do full inclusion because it doesn't make much sense. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon is confused, and basically all of her changes are incorrect. A setting is not the same as a track (or a stream). An example of a setting is "Johnny spends his day in the ordinary classroom for students his age". A simple example of a track is "Johnny receives reading instruction designed for highly gifted students, with (only) other highly gifted students." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the tracking article, it says setting is another term for tracking. If that is wrong, then how come the US relies more on tracking than any other nation in the world? I have provided sources and for you to just judge and say it was all wrong because of your personal opinions is violating NPOV. Therefore I am reverting since you only reverted based on your personal opinions and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tracking (education) says this because an anon added this unverified and unverifiable assertion. I have removed it, and remind you that per WP:BURDEN you may not restore this claim unless and until you can provide a reliable source that directly supports the claim that wikt:setting means the same thing as Tracking (education). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made the changes from setting to tracking as that is the correct term to use. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you have it backwards: Setting is the correct term for the "time, place, and circumstances" that a student is educated (especially to describe whether the special student is in the same room as any typical students). As an example, imagine that the national curriculum demands that students watch a particular educational video today.

• Johnny, whose special needs make reading difficult, watches the video in the regular classroom (=normal classroom setting, normal curriculum track).
• Susie, whose special needs make reading difficult, watches the video in a classroom exclusively for the use of disabled students (=special education setting, normal curriculum track).
• Mary, a brilliant student with photosensitive epilepsy, is not permitted to watch videos. While her class watches the video, she goes to another regular classroom and reads an advanced book about the same subject (=normal classroom setting, special curriculum track).

As you can see, it is possible for students to receive the normal type of education ("track") in different settings. Please revert the errors that you have introduced again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You do not understand what tracking is. Let me explain it to you.

• Johnny is a student of low ability. He is assigned to a vocational track where he learns skills that are needed for him later on in his life. Why is he in a vocational track? He has a learning disability and it is hard for him to do difficult work in general track. He needs the curriculum modified for him so he can do the work. He is in a separate class for students who are on the vocational track. This is mainstreaming.
• Susie is a student of middle ability. She is assigned to a general track where she learns in regular classes. That means she is with other students who do not have special needs. This is inclusion.
• Alexis is a student of middle ability. She is assigned to a vocational track due to her refusal to do schoolwork in the regular school. She is segregated in a special school for girls with emotional problems. This is segregation.
• Mary is a student of high ability. She is assigned to a college-bound track. She also has a learning disability and takes resource room. This is inclusion.
• Stephanie is a student of low ability. She is assigned to a vocational track. She is excluded from attending school because she is sick and is in the hospital. She also has dyslexia. This is exclusion.

As you can see, it is possible for students to receive the special type of education ("setting") in different tracks. How can I revert my “errors” when it is helping to maintain a global perspective? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to put articles in a global perspective. When other countries do not solely use tracking, it changes the way how students with disabilities are educated. A student who is in a vocational track in the US would not get the same treatment in countries that do not solely use tracking. The culture in other countries have a more cooperative learning which makes resource room, separate classes meaningless. Of course separate classes only exist for those who truly have disabilities that makes it impossible to learn in a cooperative learning environment. The US relies more on tracking than any other nation in the world. So the way the educate students with disabilities should be magnified so others who aren't from the US can see the differences. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) Introducing errors does not make the article represent a global perspective. Using your examples, here's what we've got:

Student	Track	Setting
Johnny	Vocational track	Separate classroom (probably mainstreaming)
Susie	General track	Regular classroom (inclusion)
Alexis	Vocational track	Special school (segregation)
Mary	College-bound track	Resource room (inclusion)
Stephanie	Vocational track	Hospital-based education (exclusion)

The section is all about the concepts presented in the third column, but you have repeatedly renamed it to say that it's about the second column. Do you find words or ideas like "college-bound track" or "vocational training" anywhere in the section that you re-named as "tracking"? If not -- and if you do find the ideas listed in the "setting" column -- then perhaps we can agree that the section is actually about the setting. If so, I hope that you will promptly revert your erroneous mislabeling of this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake. The reason why they are included, mainstreamed, segregated or excluded is because of tracking. They aren't tracked into inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation or exclusion. If we don't mention tracking in the general section about how special education is provided, it is difficult for the international reader to understand why the students are included, mainstreamed, segregated or excluded. I hope we can agree with the current revision now. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that it is only the US editors who insist that the settings consist of: inclusion, mainstreaming, segregation and exclusion. No reference has been found to support the use of this description on a worldwide basis. The system of mainstreaming seems to be specific to the US, and the words inclusion and exclusion are used in different ways by different organisations (eg, see the Unesco references I quoted above). We don't want to got into lots of specific details about the American tracking system in a general section, though of course if you can find a reference which shows that tracking is used extensively in other countries then it would be appropriate. Germany for instance has a tripartite system with grammar schools for the able children, technical schools and vocational schools, but we wouldn't want to focus specifically on the German education system in a general section. Dahliarose (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do the US editors keep saying that because the Americans came up with these terms that we have to use it in a global perspective? They said something we have to build a web. They said to focus on what happens to these students under those terms. They look pretty upset whenever those terms are placed under the US. We can’t find a substitute for those terms in a global perspective. In the meantime, that’s what we need to use. It’s to help international editors understand how the tracking system works in America so they know why these students are included, segregated, mainstreamed and excluded. I bolded the statement above. Did you not see it? Why do you keep removing the other section? Not all countries use tracking. They don't use mainstreaming, inclusion, segregation or exclusion. There was a source provided. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Anon. Your comments and WhatAmIDoing's replies have helped me to understand the situation in the US more. I did not realise that the US had such a complicated tracking/streaming system. I can understand now why I couldn't make sense of your concept of mainstreaming. We don't have a tracking system so there is no equivalent to your mainstreaming model. To make the article more global all the material which is specific to US schools related to tracking really needs to go in the US section. You are right that this is a very important point which needs to be made. At the moment the settings section still mostly describes the settings used in the US, and doesn't recognise that schools in other countries don't have tracking and mainstreaming (or at least not in the same sense). There is still a lot of work to be done to make this article understood by a global readership. Dahliarose (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The "other" section is relevant. These countries don't solely use tracking. You can't just group them with the rest of the countries that solely or do tracking. There was a source, anyway. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But the way it's phrased you suggest that every country uses tracking which is not the case. It seems as though America is one of the few countries that uses this system. The rest of the world is dismissed to an "other" section as though all the other countries in the world don't count and are an afterthought. We need to talk in general terms in a general article based on common practice in the majority of countries. It's like writing an article talking about money and explaining that currency is divided into dollars and cents, but ignoring the fact that there are many other countries in the world who used different currencies such as Euros, pounds, etc. Dahliarose (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are getting confused just like I did. These settings are not tracking. The reason for these settings is because of tracking. There is a difference. Tracking is a very complex system. Of course the "other" section is very short compared to them. International editors have no idea why these students are included, mainstreamed, segregated or excluded. We need to mention about the tracking in the general section about how special education is provided. You aren't reading what I am saying above. I have said this already. I am beginning to be very frustrated at the lack of respect of other countries. The US relies more on tracking than any other nation in the world. That is all it is saying. It also suggests that other countries may use tracking but they don't completely rely on it. In international countries, they have to take a test to get into the selective high schools. This is tracking. In elementary or junior high school they don't use tracking. They have mix ability classes. America does not have mix ability classes. They have homogeneous classes where students with similar skills and intellectual abilities learn together. In America, they use tracking from K-12. It's different. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's getting very difficult to follow all these different comments so I will reply to everything here. I think I understand what you're saying. It is clear that the American education system is very different from the European systems. The point however is that in the general section of the article we want to focus on general issues relating to special education rather than specific issues relating to just one country. You are quite right that the American tracking system needs to be explained but it needs to be done in the section for the US or perhaps in the article on Special education in the United States with extra detail provided in the Tracking (education) article which already explains the US usage of the term at some length. Similarly we would confine discussions of the tripartite German system to the German section or a separate article on education in Germany. Dahliarose (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just about everything you've 'learned' from the anon is simply wrong. For example, tracking is actually illegal in much of the US, and tracking is not why special education is provided in a variety of settings. (Special education is provided in various settings because it is absolutely impossible to educate anybody outside of some kind of setting [time, place, circumstances].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing' interpretation is mistaken. Tracking is still in usage in the US. They call it "ability grouping" but it's the same thing as tracking. Think of this way. It's what happens to these special needs students, not the terminology. What happens to these kids is because of tracking and to fulfill these tracks, we have settings. That is important. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't the same, but I see that you've improperly redirected the one article to the other. If you would actually read the articles, you might figure out the difference, but here's a simple summary: Dividing the class into small groups for reading instruction is ability grouping. Applying to LaGuardia Arts is volunteering to be tracked.

Also, your "source" is 25 years old, which means that whatever it says about American educational practices is seriously outdated. Inclusive education basically didn't exist when Oakes wrote her book in 1985. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The authors that wrote it obviously know which references is correct. The Oaks, Keeping Track was used as a reference in Teachers, Schools and Society which is an updated textbook. (It's copyright date is in 2009.) Ability grouping can be mentioned under tracking. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ability grouping is just half of the complete tracking. We group them on ability, and then they are placed in their tracks. Americans use ability grouping because tracking received negative connotations. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

See my post below, in which I hoped to clarify soo me terms. "Setting" has two meanings: a) a form of tracking, involving the verb "to set" and b) a generic word meaning something like "context", "set-up", "situation". I understood your examples, and they illuminate the use of meaning b) in special education. I think they would make sense to practitioners in many English-speaking countries, but not necessarily to those who only know the UK systems. Unfortunately, the devil is in the detail. I appreciate your strenuous efforts to broker understanding. This is deceptively complex territory. Who said "two nations divided by a common language" might have been thinking about special education! Itsmejudith (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says setting is tracking? 198.38.10.1 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We have this user who keeps claiming that setting (education) is ability grouping. However, ability grouping is in reality tracking. She doesn't believe that. The more sources we have then we can prove to her that she is wrong. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean me. Tracking and ability grouping are concepts that have a lot of overlap. I understood your formula "students are grouped by ability and then placed into tracks". Fair enough in many cases. But it is not quite as simple as that. What about ability grouping within a classrom? This is the norm in UK primary education, where a child can be on "blue table" for reading but "red table" for maths. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall try to clear up some of the confusion about terminology, just in the hope that this sheds light and avoids further confusion and unnecessary argument. "Tracking" is a generic term, useable in comparative education contexts. Students may be tracked by the type of program they desire to follow, for example in the French bacclaureate there are literary, scientific, technological and vocational tracks. And student may be tracked by ability, for example in Germany from age 10 students attend one of three types of school. Tracks can be taught in separate schools or there can be different tracks in the same school. "Streaming" was one form of tracking practised in the UK until about the 1970s. It was practised alongside the division into different types of school (the tripartite system. "Streaming" as a term only applied within a school, for example a secondary modern school would have an A stream, a B stream, and a C stream. The streams were taught separately for all classes. Gradually, schools replaced streaming with "setting", which is still in place. Today, a student may be in "top set" for English, but a lower set for Maths, then perhaps also a middle set for History and a top set again for Geography, etc, etc. It is up to schools whether to "set" for all subjects or only for some, but government policy is strongly in favour of setting. Note that "to set" is a verb. A head teacher (school principal) might say "students are set for French" or "we have retained setting in French". This process of "setting" shouldn't be confused with the general "in various settings", which makes sense in international contexts. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My attempted solution

I was reverted by the IP but would be interested to know whether others thought I was getting any closer to clearing up the muddle. IP's edit summary for the revert wasn't in itself a particularly coherent argument. "Educationists, particularly in North America have classified" does not rule out "it's mainly the US that does it". Classification in the academic literature of kinds of provision is not the same as practice in schools. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And what was wrong with the previous one? It was fine. The second sentence has a global perspective on it. Just putting UK in the second sentence in your revision makes this article look like it's in a UK perspective. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many educators charge that the US relies on tracking the most when compared to everywhere else. In your current revision, you said in particular in North America. That includes Canada, Mexico, etc. 198.38.10.1 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I do know where North America is. I don't know about Mexico, but I know a bit about education in Canada. Canadian educationists have to use the same language as people in the US because they are rated by the number of papers they can get into US journals. But the US journals don't publish Canadian papers because they think they are only of interest to Canadians. Meanwhile, Canada has six different education systems, so they can do their own comparative education. As in the UK we have four different systems so we can do our own comparisons too. If you want to know more about comparative education, just ask. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser just awarded the "anonymous" editor a three-month-long range block, and she will consequently be finding it difficult to participate further in this conversation.

I have restored your introductory sentence. The only change I made was to remove the term educationist, which is usually considered derogatory by anyone who has read anything by Richard Mitchell. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regions of the world

just a point of interest dolfrog (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should feel free to organize this section in any system that seems sensible to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

the use of the word "settings"

As it stands the word "setting" is very ambiguous. Until I read the comments about tracking yesterday I was under the impression that "setting" refereed to the physical environment where the special education was provided such as the picture provided in that section of the article, and not how children are categories by ability. This is more about keeping pace with the current terminology being used in the many locations which use the English language, and for the terminology used in the general article to be as universal and universally descriptive as possible. Country specific terminology can be used in the Special education in ..... by country articles, which are dedicated to the UK, the USA, etc where the systems used to deliver special education can be described, a history of the systems included, and professional, advocate and parent comment added relating to those specific system and how they are being implemented by the respective countries (even US State) governments. There are also various cultural issues which vary from country to country as to how they view those who have any form of disability or difference, and how their culture supports those who have any type of difference. These perceptions do vary from country to country, even between countries who appear to share the same language mainly for historical if not cultural reasons dolfrog (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In real contexts the physical place that students are situated in and which other students they are there with are intimately connected. The American educational use of "setting" is very close to a generic English use of "setting". It means "the context": where and who with, simultaneously. Unfortunately, in an article for an international readership there is too much potential for confusion with the UK English "setting" (ability grouping in school subject lessons). Itsmejudith (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "context" is that I don't think readers will look at that and think, "Oh, that's about some students getting specialized help in the ordinary classroom, and others in a special classroom", but the big picture -- the sociological context of any social program -- which is something like "One in seven children in English-speaking countries have a physical or psychological problem that interferes with their ability to learn well in the ordinary classroom environment, with only standard teaching techniques. These students require additional assistance or different methods to succeed academically. Society benefits from providing special arrangements to help these students learn. High literacy rates raise worker productivity, reduce poverty, and save lives (e.g., because they can read the directions on a bottle of medicine). Whether and how a society provides special education also says something about that society values individuals, learning, and diversity."

In short, wikt:context is about why something matters/what the larger meaning is, not merely how it happens.

Setting is just plain English: "time, place, and circumstances". It's not a special American use, or a bit of eduspeak. It's just the plain old dictionary definition. All the possible synonyms that I've thought of overemphasize the "place" aspect, but if you've got alternatives, I'd be happy to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the definitions from the online Oxford English Dictionary for both meanings of "setting". The confusion is quite understandable:

b. transf. and fig. The environment or surroundings in which a person or thing is ‘set’; the literary framework of a narrative or other composition; the mounting of a play.

set, v.2 trans. To group (pupils) into sets (see SET n.2 2d); also absol. Hence setting vbl. n. 1953 Organ. Comprehensive Secondary Schools (London County Council) 14 A practicable arrangement would be to re-set only across three adjacent forms. ‘Setting’ in this way would not determine the rate at which each set would work. 1957 B. SIMON New Trends in Eng. Educ. II. 46, I will not ask the reader to follow me in the intricacies of fifth-year setting. 1962 J. VAIZEY Britain in Sixties v. 56 Some..feel that..children should be ‘setted’ for each subject. 1965Observer 7 Nov. 4/8 Mathematics teachers consider it necessary to set after two terms. 1973 MORRISON & MCINTYRETeachers & Teaching (ed. 2) iii. 126 There is reason to believe that the practise of ‘setting’ different streaming for each of several subjects reduces these effects. 1975 Language for Life (Dept. Educ. & Sci.) xv. 224 Speaking purely for English, most of us have reservations about arrangements by which pupils are streamed or setted according to ability.

set, n.2 d. A subdivision of pupils or students (esp. in a single year) for instruction on a particular subject: usu. one of a number of such groupings and often constituted according to ability. 1882 in R. S. Churchill Winston S. Churchill (1967) I. Compan. I. iii. 90 Place in 3rd Set of 14 boys for Term 14th. 1889 Boy's Own Paper 7 Sept. 781 Those dry definitions [of Euclid] seem twaddle to me (I admit I am low in my set). 1914 ‘I. HAY’ Lighter Side School Life i. 15 He must know whether Mr. A. in the Senior Science Set is expounding theories of inorganic chemistry which have been obsolete for ten years. 1963 M. BEADLE These Ruins are Inhabited vi. 86 Sets are ability groups. In each subject the boys had been divided into fast, average and slower-moving sections; each of these sets met as a class. 1971 P. D. JAMES Shroud for Nightingale ii. 41 We haven't used the demonstration room since Nurse Pearce's death but otherwise the set is continuing to work according to plan. Dahliarose (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As the word is obviously and exclusively used as the noun setting, then the definitions as a verb and the definitions that apply only to the three-letter noun set are obviously irrelevant. Consequently, only the first line quoted above is at all relevant: "The environment or surroundings in which a person or thing is ‘set’". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you include a paragraph to explain the intend meaning of the word setting, and how it should apply to special education in general, then it should not be included as a heading.

What is more important is to have a section heading which explains the content of each section which is understandable universally and is not spercific to any small group of counties, especially if the words are to be translated using specific english dictionaries, The Oxford English Dictionary is the most used especially for most European based languages dolfrog (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. I understand that What wants to use "setting" in its everyday English sense (I said that above, actually). A careful reader shouldn't find it confusing. But we can't guarantee that our readers will be careful. I therefore suggest "modes of provision". Special education is something provided isn't it? And it can be provided in a number of different ways. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"specifically adapted teaching area"

The problem with the term "resource room" has been demonstrated above to lack a global understanding of it intended meaning. So if we add the following descriptive text to the first Wikipedia link to the specifically adapted teaching area (or may be "facility" instead of "area") in the article then the intended mean from that point on in the article will lack any ambiguity for later use of resource room dolfrog (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the 99.9% of our readers who don't use screen readers, your solution provides explanatory text, but does not help the reader discover "the intended meaning from that point on in the article." I have implemented the usual solution, which is to provide a term and a parenthetical explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Prerequisites for inclusion

My initial thoughts about the long quotation at Special education#Prerequisites for inclusion are these:

• It's kind of long, and I think we could summarize the main points more concisely than this quotation does.
• I'm not fully convinced that this needs to be in this article at all (although it might do well at Inclusive education). (It's kind of specific to inclusion of kids with ASD, which are only a small fraction of kids with special needs.)
• If it stays in this article, it might make more sense to merge it into the "Issues" section.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do mess about with it and edit it in where it fits (of course so long as you don't misrepresent it). I was trying to move beyond the talk page to identify useful content in academic journals. It's not just about ASD, by the way. It comes from an address given to a SEN conference. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Section headings

We now have two sections that are about different things, but have basically identical headings: "Provision of individualized services" and "How Special Education can be provided".

One of these sections is about providing services (how it is done, e.g., by changing the curriculum). The other section is about the setting in which these services are provided ("where" it is done, e.g., with or without typical students). Can we go back to having obviously different section headings for these different subjects?

(Also, Wikipedia uses sentence case for section headings, and consequently "Special Education" should never be capitalized.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

CiteULike "Special Education" and"Inclusion" research paper groups

I found this online research paper bookmarking group for the topic of Inclusion. I have used the sort option so that the articles are in year of publication order. dolfrog (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just started a new CiteULike research paper bookmarking group Special Education. The research papers can be viewed by all, but you have to join CiteULike to add more research papers to the group Library. dolfrog (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One main topic per section, with matching heading

All of this:

Special education is not a location, but the act of educating students in a way that is "special", or different from the usual methods. The provision of education to people with special needs or learning differences differs across countries and (in the US, Canada, Germany, and other federally organized countries) across states. The ability of a student to access a particular resource depends on the availability of services, location, family choice, and government policy. For example, in some poor countries, students with special needs simply cannot attend school.
Additionally, improved teaching methods and early intervention models are being implemented by general education teachers to reduce the need for special education through prevention.

Support can be provided for short periods or long term, and the kinds of support may change over time. For example, a child that required a one-on-one instructional aide for safety reasons while very young might outgrow this need when older.

was in the section that was recently renamed "Individual needs". None of this text is about individualization. It is primarily about the provision of special education services -- which is a completely different topic from what you'll find in the next section, which is now called "Methods of provision". (Yes, that would be the section that contains almost no information about methods for providing special education services, but instead is focused on the setting in which those methods are employed).

It's silly and unhelpful to our readers to dump information about methods of providing services in a section labeled "Individual needs". Either this should be merged into a larger section about how/where services are provided, or it should be put into a separate section about the provision of services. Do you have a preference? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I like waht you have done so far, and we need to continue to put the content under the correct headings. You had mentioned previously that the two sections in question had headings which could have areas of content overlap, now that the heading have more clarity as to the potential content, as you have mentioned above there is a need to adjust the content from previous versions of this article to match the heading being used in the article now. And the actual locations or settings used to provide the special education are part of the wider aspects of the methods of provision. Not all schools are able to provide a separate room but may have a separate area within the main classroom as part of their methods of provision. We also need to include some details about Individual Education Plans (IEPs) dolfrog (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation "geistige"

Thank you for translating the German names of the schools, but I think "geistige Entwicklung" was ill-translated here. While it is true that "geistig" means spiritual it also may refer to cognition and a "geistige Behinderter" is a person, who is mentally handicapped. So that is what "geistig" means here. I think this should be changed.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to have a better translation. I gave it the most literal translation, but I agree that it's not likely to be correct -- or, more precisely, no matter how technically accurate it might be, it's not likely to communicate the correct notion to English readers.

Before making another attempt (which I would cheerfully let you do), I wanted to figure out whether these schools were largely for students with mental retardation, or if someone with normal intelligence, but (e.g.,) severe dyslexia might be enrolled in them. Do you happen to know?

If these schools are largely for students with mental retardation, then I think that "School for cognitive development" might be the right answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not really sure about how people get into special schools for people with learning challenges, but as far as I know it always involves an IQ-test. I do however know, about a person who was tested in the low average range and still attended one, because his parents wanted him to.

What I know for sure is that persons suffering from dyslexia do not have to attend special schools in Germany. They may attend all schools up to Gymnasium (Germany) if the can prove they have the prerequisite IQ. Their German grades will not be counted for their GPAs in that case.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed global tag

I have removed the global tag as I see nothing that warrants such a tag. It is confusing to the readers when it is currently written in a global point of view. Yvonne Liu 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you feel there is something missing that should be included in this article that is relevant to special education, then add it. Yvonne Liu 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the global tag. As you can see from the discussions on this talk page these issues have not yet been addressed. The article is not currently written from a global point of view but is written from the perspective of developed countries and specifically the US with a lot of US-specific terminology which is confusing for readers in other countries. I've not had time to do any editing of late but will have a go when I have some more time. Dahliarose (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A few following thoughts

A student who is expelled is expelled. The term excluded is unnecessary here and only furthers to confuse the reader. A student who is expelled from school is placed on home instruction. Students placed on home instruction can have many teachers helping them. They can have a resource room and a general education teacher. A resource room in the previous revision implies that student must be in the regular school to get that service. The "methods of provision" also implies that students have a specific method that they must use. That is untrue. This article should focus on the services that students with disabilities must have. It is very difficult to talk about inclusion and mainstreaming in a global context. It is best to just discuss the services that students with disabilities must have. And that can definitely be implied on a global view. The varying types of school systems around the world makes it difficult for students with disabilities to get their individual needs met. A list of services that are provided for students with disabilities is much more informative than what method is done. A parent reading this article would find a description of services very helpful to them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is to provide facts to everyone who would have not otherwise got it. This is special education. It does not mean we have to use other Wikipedia articles and link it into this. We can simply link to other articles and put it under "See also". There is a reason for that. To connect everything and clump it into special education is confusing for the reader. I will go ahead and "be bold" and make the relevant changes. Eliane Schlessel (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, is the school of the German special school, a residential school or a separate school? I'm talking about the picture that is currently in the article. Residential school is like a boarding school and separate school is a day school. Eliane Schlessel (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the picture since I am not sure rather it is separate school or residential school. Eliane Schlessel (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violation...

Sock master Random account 39949472 has admitted via IRC to have willingly copied and pasted the content in the Description of Services section from [this website] I have tagged the section as copy/paste, but I'm leaving it to someone who is a part of WP:EDU to edit, as I'm not sure of the information. The user is attempting to correct their wrongs with this, in order to possibly be allowed a return next year under the WP:Standard Offer, and I'm willing to AGF for now. The user is concerned about getting in trouble, and appears to want to return to Wikipedia on good terms. We'll see. This looks like a positive step though. --ANowlin: talk 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Eliane Schlessel and Random account 39949472 are one and the same. So I have reverted the article to its state prior to all of Eliane Schlessel edits, which eliminates the problem you have identified dolfrog (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. I just figured I'd let someone more familiar with this subject do it, in case the information was viable, and needed to be simply re-written. --ANowlin: talk 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Those images and other information removed are not vandalism when it has already been explained why. Read above. Sgoldbergwiki (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well well well... So much for not socking anymore, and so much for returning to Wikipedia, Jessica. Who said anything about vandalism anyway? --ANowlin: talk 22:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

I was reverted by WhatamIdoing. How is this source a copyvio? I have quoted the text exactly. [10] The Nysut is a union of professionals. If you can't trust them, who else can you trust? The Nysut has its own copyright. This is their website. [11] Summerblush (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This may be useful

Hi all For the immediate future I will be busy with a number of projects both in real life and on Wikipedia. I came across this research paper the other day a 2008 review of Special Education Law, which the editors on this and related articles may find useful (I have only read the abstract, and have not yet obtained a copy of the full research paper.) A Review of Special Education Law dolfrog (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

umm...

I really like to revert to this revision: [12] as the source is from a gov/ link. It's not a copyvio. I have quoted the exact words from the source. Hteb (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately your source only applies to the USA, this is a global Wikipedia article, and you deleted the introduction which indicates that the following content is from the USa and may not apply to countries ourside of the USA. We have been trying to balance the USA bias in this article, and you have just reintroduced that USa bias. There is a Special education in the USA article so may be you may prefer to add USA only content. dolfrog (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Education researchers, particularly in United States, have described different kinds of services in special education." It says in particular in the US. Hteb (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I will leave the "methods of provision" intro the same. Hteb (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés

Le gouvernement français se trouve, concernant le handicap, devant une situation particulière qui n'est pas du tout désespérée, mais qui nécessite « du punch ». Nous allons montrer quelques points développant cette remarque d'actualité en décrivant le contexte international puis national de la scolarisation des enfants handicapés. Voir l'article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés Revue / Journal Title Pour ISSN 0245-9442 Source / Source 2007, no195, pp. 30-36 [7 page(s) (article)] Langue / Language Français Editeur / Publisher Revue POUR - Groupe de recherche pour l'éducation et la prospective, Paris, FRANCE --Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:34 (CET)--90.53.167.82 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We would be happy to have information about special education in France added to these articles, but you must write in English on these pages. If you need help with English, try the WP:EMBASSY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation: The French government is, in relation to disability, in a difficult situation. Not desperate, but needing "a big push". We will demonstrate a few points developing this topical comment, describing the international, and then the national, situation of the education of disabled children. See the article by Michel Courtault... (journal article details follow). It's a pointer towards an article that may be relevant. I will try and locate the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasonably accurate material removed?

About this:

As far as I can tell, the information is verifiable, even if the particular source named is a bit weak, and even if the editor used "developmentally disabled" as a euphemism for people with below average IQ. (Cleft palate is a "developmental disability", but people with that condition are just as capable of mastering the standard curriculum as anyone else (unless they have other disabilities, same as anyone else).

And the title isn't misspelled; it's just an old variant spelling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that undergraduate papers are, in general, sufficient sources for nearly anything. If the material is true and well-known then surely a better source can be found. Hell, I'd be okay with the material being readded without a source for now. My objection is to (lack of) quality of the source, not the information or its veracity. ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider restoring it with the weak source and the (IMO not inappropriate) {{verify credibility}} tag? My notion here is that a weak source may actually be better than no source (for now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's very poor practice but if you feel very strongly about it I won't revert such an edit. ElKevbo (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Contributions?

I would like to contribute a section just on some of the disorders that are placed in Special Education, and also give some insight on how it maybe affects the child in the program? Kls092810 (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Exclusion?

I have never heard of exclusion as a means of providing SPED services. Should this be removed? Any objections?

Mcuringa (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, what would you call the approach of not allowing students with special needs to attend school at all? Because that is exactly what happened worldwide for centuries, and what still happens in many poor countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would call that part of an ongoing pattern of injustice and don't intend to deny it. Still, I contend that "exclusion" is not a "Method of provision." Should the section header by changed to, "Approaches towards special education populations" or something? Mcuringa (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the current title and would be very happy to have a better name for the section. It was originally "Settings", I think, since this section is primarily dealing with "places", but that term apparently means "assigning students to groups" in the UK.

My major concern with "Methods" is that it really isn't about methods. I think readers would expect to find something more like "simpler curriculum" or "greater repetition" or "computer-based individualized instruction" or "extra time on tests" in a section called "methods". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting to your misleading definition in the first sentence. Special education is far more than "a field of study". Just about everything is a field of study, including "automobiles", "medicine", and "traffic". But you'd think it stupid to see Traffic begin with "Traffic is a field of study..."—even though there are thousands of people who have carefully studied "traffic"—rather than the actual definition, which is "Traffic is people and things moving on a road". It's equally stupid to say that "Special education is a field of study..." rather than telling people what it actually is, which is the education of people with special needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it's important to emphasize that. I didn't see it as misleading. But if you don't think so, I'm willing to compromise. It's really not that important. Xcueta (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

Content hidden per WP:DENY and WP:BAN

I am not changing the article without consensus. Editing Wikipedia is about being bold and discussing on the talk page. Xcueta (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC) No, editing Wikipedia is about learning how to compromise with other people and work towards a workable consensus. You have clearly failed to engage meaningfully in that process. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC) A careful re-read of WP:BRD is in order. You are supposed to stop editing the contested material while the discussion is ongoing. Engaging in discussion and then going back to edit warring is still edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Xcueta is now re-blocked as a sock of a banned user. Any edits they have made either here or in the article may be reverted as needed or desired per our banning policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What to do

This:

The characteristics of effective instruction are reported by educational researchers who study the critical teacher behaviours in classroom settings. it must be noted that effective instruction is not defined as a single method of teaching but rather as a series of characteristics which can be embedded into a range of teaching approaches. Effective instruction enables the efficient use of class time to maximise learning outcomes for students maximises on-task behaviour of students and minimises inappropriate behaviour. Effective instruction involves implementing strategies in planning, managing, delivering and evaluating instruction. Meta-analyses of the research indicate that teaching approaches that combine direct instruction (explicit, teacher-directed instruction in basic skills and content) and strategy instruction (explicit instruction to teach cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies) are most successful. Effective teachers are competent with a wide array of instructional strategies, including teacher-directed, explicit instruction and are able to select the most appropriate strategies for individual students and specific content. There is a danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy when teachers have low expectations of students with special educational needs. Teachers and school executive are able to create a positive school climate that values and accepts all students. With the advent of inclusive curriculum, collaborative partnerships between students, families, special educators, teachers, teacher aides and other relevant professional are imperative. Collaboration provides the vehicle for the pooling of knowledge about curriculum, current curriculum trends, and the knowledge of effective practices to meet the needs of the diverse range of students in any class.

was buried under ===Australia===, as if this only applied to the one country. What should we do with this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Instructional strategies

This new section seems to describe practices in North America and is lacking in sources, and also refers to US-specific organisations and uses odd words such as "accommodations" which would appear to be peculiar to America. It might be best to move this whole section to the article on special education in North America. It is quite acceptable to write an article in American English, but it is different when American-specific terminology is used which is only used in one country and not familiar to readers in the rest of the world. Dahliarose (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I merged that text from another article (copyedited to merge with the existing information), which now redirects here. It was missing sources, and based on some of the "name dropping" in it, I've wondered if perhaps it actually came from some third article.

However, I'm happy to provide sources. In this instance, you may notice that I've added exclusively sources that are UK government documents, proving once again that these are not merely US-only terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs a huge amount of work. It's got to be written in a way which is understood by everyone. The only reference for the use of the terminology "accommodations" and "modifications" is from an American text book. I would suggest this sections is rephrased to avoid the use of the American word accommodations which is never used in this plural form in British English. Where is the reference to show that these terms are used or recognised in any other country? I would suggest this sections is rephrased to avoid the use of the American word accommodations which is never used in this plural form in British English. You can't exclusive American terminology in an article that applies to the whole world. If the terms are used it needs to be made clear that they only used in the US. Granted some of the concepts are universally applicable but if something is only relevant to the US it needs to be stated. "Penmanship" is an exclusively American term. High school exit exams is another American phrase that needs to be written in a different , eg, exams taken at the end of formal schooling. Handwriting is not even a subject in the curriculum in England and Wales. The problems of the US bias in the article have still not been addressed. It is still full of US-specific terms like resource room, response to intervention and mainstreaming. We've still not established if there is an equivalent model to mainstreaming in the US in other countries. In European countries there seems to be no half-way house as there is in the US. If these American terms are used in the text it needs to be made clear to the reader that they only apply to the US. I will restore the globalise tag as these issues still need to be sorted. 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are having trouble finding the sources I added to that section. They are:

• Pepper, David (25 September 2007). Assessment for disabled students: an international comparison (Report). UK: Ofqual's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Regulation & Standards Division.
• Busuttil-Reynaud, Gavin and John Winkley. e-Assessment Glossary (Extended) (Report). UK: Joint Information Systems Committee and Ofqual's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
• Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. UK: Department for Education and Skills. November 2001. ISBN 1841855294. DfES/581/2001.</ref>

These are the only three sources cited in the definition of the terms accommodation and modification. Can you tell me which of these three sources is the "American textbook"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not quoted any page numbers. Please provide the relevant text which states that accommodations is used in the plural form in standard English, and is accepted terminology in special education in a worldwide context. The Oxford English Dictionary has the following:

esp. Room and suitable provision for the reception of people; entertainment; lodgings. (Formerly, and still U.S., mostly in pl.)

which confirms that accommodations is only used in the US in the plural form. That is just one word. What about all the other Americanisms in the article? Dahliarose (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had assumed that you were capable of searching the pdf files, but if you aren't, then please consider these direct quotations:

Overall though, the available information shows that all of the countries make presentation accommodations and most of them make response or scheduling accommodations as well. Setting accommodations, however, were much less apparent. (Pepper, pg 14)

Equality of opportunity with other candidates, by providing a foundation in law for adjustments to/accommodations in examination conditions. (Pepper, pg 18)

Such adaptations/accommodations may include the provision of a reader or assistant, for example, or the use of a tape recorder or other adaptive equipment. (Pepper, pg 21)

That's just a small sample from the one source. Naturally, you'd also want to take into account the existence of hundreds of other examples, like this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this—every single one of which is published on a UK government website. As a result, I am unable to believe that your outdated dictionary definition is really the complete story here—even if it said that the word was exclusively American English, which it definitely does not. (Or perhaps it's your position that the British government does not use British English?)

As for your recent changes, you have introduced errors. For example, block lettering is not CAPITAL LETTERS; it's what the little children start off with before they learn to write in long hand. It looks like letters made out of circles and sticks. See File:A Library Primer illustration Disjoined Hand.jpg if you need help. (I chose that name, BTW, solely because that's where the Wikipedia article on the subject sits. It's not the most common term in American English for that type of writing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the text book source was now. It is a mistake to look at these things late at night. I've now looked at the Pepper paper in detail and it clear that he has been quoted out of context. Pepper reviews the terminology in a number of different countries, and the word accommodations mostly appears throughout the text in inverted commas to indicate that the word is not universally recognised, and it is qualified by other words to explain the meaning. Accommodations appears to be the accepted terminology in the US and Canada. The UK equivalent is "reasonable adjustments". See for instance the introduction on p1: "There is an interesting article by Margaret Hopper available on ERIC. This says that all US states have their own established policies on 'accommodations' (reasonable adjustments) for the disadvantaged". The Australians use the terminology "special consideration" (second part of the paper, p4): "Terminology used: 'Special consideration' is the term which covers 'reasonable adjustments'." The terms "presentation accommodations", "response accommodations", "setting accommodations" and "scheduling accommodations" were coined by the US author Margaret Hopper in 2001. Pepper is merely quoting from Hopper's paper, eg, on p12 in the section on Typology: "In the US, one author has developed a typology of assessment 'accommodations' for disabled students". He then goes on to quote her terminology and explain it. You have quoted Pepper out of context above - he was merely summarising Hopper's work not suggesting that the terminology was applicable everywhere. While these terms might now be in common use in North America, they will be unfamiliar to readers elsewhere, and I would suggest it is best to avoid such terminology in an article intended for an international readership until or unless it is used in multiple reliable sources from around the world in the appropriate context. I'm surprised at some of the references you found to the word "accommodations" on UK websites, but a lot of official bodies do tend to use a lot of impenetrable jargon. Most of these references seem to relate to employment legislation and driving tests rather than special education. Nevertheless the plural form "accommodations" is not in common usage in British English. If it were, Pepper would not need to use inverted commas and the word would be in the OED by now. Dahliarose (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't quoted Pepper out of context: Pepper does actually use that term in exactly the way I showed, even when not talking about the USA, not talking about Canada, and not talking about Hooper's paper. While he does use quotes to indicate exact terms in each country (and not just this one; cataloging the variety of terms used is one of the goals), he also uses the word accommodations, in the plural, in general descriptions.

Furthermore, as I show above, Pepper is far from the only UK source that uses this term, not only in the plural, but in the plural and with this meaning.

As for the OED—I hear that they're in the middle of a major update. Presumably they just haven't gotten around to this word yet.

Are you now willing to admit that UK sources actually do actually use this word, in this sense, at least on occasion? If you don't, then we can go ask for a third opinion, but I admit that I'm going to feel really silly if we have to go to 3O with a request to get a third opinion on whether or not the quoted word is present in the sources that are in front of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OED isn't really relevant for jargon like this, which can change quite quickly. Use what the relevant policymakers and academics use. Also, the terminology doesn't matter that much anyway; just note any synonyms and reliably sourced usage differences, and focus on the content. Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Block letters

Regarding the use of the term "block letters" it seems there is considerable confusion and I suspect this another difference between American English and British English. The OED has the following definitions: (1) block capital n. a capital letter written or printed without serifs. (2) block letter n. (a) in pl., printing-types of large size cut out of wooden blocks; (b) = block capital n. These internet references demonstrate the confusion [13], [14]. In British English it is not a term in general usage other than in the phrase block capitals. I suggest for clarity the term is avoided altogether. The linked Wiki article is lacking in sources and not particularly helpful. Dahliarose (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. The article is written in American English, so the use of American terms is acceptable even if some British readers don't recognize those terms.
2. There is no need for this article to restrict the term only to the jargonistic definition used by typographers.
3. There are no good alternatives, because the alternative terms are equally ambiguous. For example, the most common American name for childish writing with sticks and circles is "printing"—but that term can equally refer to printing from your home computer and printing on large-scale commercial presses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. In context it's clear enough, even though the term isn't familiar in itself (the way "block capitals" is). There isn't any good alternative, and it's wikilinked. Rd232 ^talk 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disapplication

About this:

Is it your belief that the exact word "disapplication" somehow magically does not appear seven times in the SEN Code? That the glossary of testing terms does not directly define the term as meaning the student is not participating because "even allowing for the full range of special arrangements/reasonable modifications that can be made", the student is still not participating in some aspect of the school program?

More importantly, do you think that this is not the official jargon used in the UK to describe dropping subjects from a student's teaching program? If so, I suggest you look at documents like this.

I don't actually mind removing it, as I think it unnecessary to provide the UK-specific jargon, but I had thought you would be pleased, rather than rejecting my efforts to provide non-US terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly that edit was because "disapplication" is a generic term, and the specific usage that was removed implied it was specific to writing? Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

special education in Czech republic

In Czech republic there are two possible ways of education of children, pupils and students with special education needs. The first is the so called traditional way (for CR) - education at special schools. There are special schools for pupils with hearing impairment; visual impairment; mental retardation (sorry for the terminology - it is still used in CR); physical handicap; speech and language disorders; dyslexia, dysgraphia, ...; and behavioural disorders. The second way is the integration (inclusion) pupils with disability into mainstream schools. There are two possibilities - individual and group integration. The group integration (special classes at mainstream schools or special schools for other type of disability) is not widelly used. The individual integration is mostly used with pupils with physical handicap and visual impairment, but the other groups of pupils can be integrated too. It is a bit difficult topic to be decribed in short.--Jerabkova78 (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 10:16, 27.11.2011

In correct information posted in regards to education in Canada.

Posted as “Education in Canada is the responsibility of the individual provinces and territories.”

Should be “The Federal Government mandates education in Canada, with the responsibility downloaded on to the individual provinces and territories and administrated through local school boards.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.153.10 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad "see also"

Please remove the "Exceptional education" link from the See Also section; it is a circular redirect, i.e. comes back to this article. Thanks.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2012

In the section Special education#History of special schools there is a link to Inclusion. Inclusion is a disambiguation page. That link should have the piped link Inclusion. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

SchreiberBike (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My concerns

Dear Sir or Madame:

Placing students with disabilities in a setting other than the regular classroom is a form of discrimination. I cannot believe that Wikipedia allows this practice to be referred as segregation. I would prefer that this subject be described in a respectful manner. Thank you, Plantinthewindow (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern. What other word would you have us use? Do you have reliable sources that would help us determine if whatever alternative term you are suggesting is in common use? Wikipedia is not here to right perceived wrongs but rather to report verifiable information in neutral tone. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I share your concerns. The primary editors on this article are in the US, and this particular section uses American terminology such as mainstreaming so I can only think that segregation is the term normally used in the US. I would have thought it would be better to use general language such as "Children are taught in special schools" rather than using specific terminology relating to one country. As stated above, we can only reflect what is written in reliable sources. However, in this particular case the use of the term segregation is not backed up by any reliable source. There is a reference (no. 14) at the end of the segregation section. The word segregation appears just twice in the report cited but neither instance supports the use of the word segregation as a label as used here. Dahliarose (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"taught in special schools" is probably not what we want to go with. A lot of school districts have closed their dedicated special education schools due to nudgetary concerns along with a desire to "mainstream" these students. Many schools do not completely segregate (or whatever you want to call it) but onstead have special classrooms for academic classes while integrating the special ed students for physical education, art, lunch, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about the situation in America which as far as I'm aware is the only country which has such a thing as a school district. In this article we need to reflect the situation for the whole world not just one country. There certainly are special schools in England, though nowhere near as many as there used to be. We don't have anything called special classrooms. Some schools, mostly those for autistic children, have been set up by parents who are unhappy with the provision provided by the government. The challenge is finding references that provide terminology covering all the scenarios in different countries rather than terms relating to the situation in one country. Dahliarose (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Plantinthewindow, can you explain why the word segregation seems disrespectful to you? The word means "setting apart" or "separating". It is not an insult. We use this term to talk about things like having separate roads for bicycles and automobiles (Segregated cycle facilities) or keeping financial investments separate (Segregated fund). It is just a normal English word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a loaded word to Americans actually, due to the period of Jim Crow laws, sometimes simply referred to as segregation. However in the literal sense it does accurately describes the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is used in education studies to describe these cases. Schools may also be segregated by race, by social class, by religious affiliation and by sex. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox segregation seems disrespectful to you? The word means "setting apart" or "separating". It would also suggest the Special Education in the USA is run by the Ku Klux Klan discriminating on grounds of race and disability. That is the association made with that word in thed UK and elsewhere. Especially going back to the 1950s 1960s and 1970s. You could be right may be the Ku Klux Klan do run Special education in the USA, and you are using the correct terminology to explain the system to those who live outside the USA. dolfrog (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to read this thread again, paying attention to who said what this time, and then reformulate your remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Global tag

I've put the global tag back on the article. There have been extensive discussions about this issue in the talk page archives. Although there are sections on different countries the whole introductory section of the article is still written very much from a First World perspective and specifically from an American perspective. Dahliarose (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT might be a better approach than eternally reverting anyone who does not share your persepctive. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried in the past but was getting nowhere. It ended up with long discussions just trying to prove that terms like Resource room are not used in the UK in the way they are in the US. I haven't got the time or energy at the moment to go through all that again. Dahliarose (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The globalize tag is not supposed to be used for what amounts to WP:ENGVAR. The UK has some separate schools and separate classrooms for students with severe disabilities; the US does, too. There is no actual difference in the content being discussed here, just in which words each system uses for it. And I don't remember you proposing any terms that indicate a difference between "put this child in a completely separate building" and "put this child in a separate classroom for two hours a day". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is difficult article to write and it would be good to have some other editors on board. There is a clear terminology in the US, which is often followed in other English-speaking countries but not always. I've looked at academic journal articles but not found a clear explanation of the UK system that would make sense to an international audience. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have "separate classrooms" for students with special needs, and children aren't "put in a separate classroom for two hours a day" so there is no concept to describe. In the UK children are either in a mainstream school or they're not. From what I've read I believe it's a similar situation in most European countries. It's not just about British English versus US English. These concepts also wouldn't exist in many African countries, where a child with special needs would often be lucky to get any education at all. There's also the additional problem of how to define what is meant by a child with special needs. In the UK the term special needs is very broad and covers things like Attention deficit disorder which is probably unheard of in Africa. I still feel a lot of the introductory content would fit better in the article on Special education in the United States. This article only needs to be a very generic introduction to the subject but it needs to cover the wider picture not just schools in the US and UK or schools in the First World. I did previously suggest using international sources from UNESCO and UNICEF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_education/Archive_3 but no one responded to my suggestions. I agree it would be helpful to have a few more international editors on board. Dahliarose (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, do you know what a "special unit" is in the UK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK there are some schools which have special units which are attached to a mainstream school. They are uncommon. In my local authority, there is just one infant school and one junior school which have special units for children on the autistic spectrum disorder. There is one secondary school which has a building for special needs children. There are only about 10 or so children in the ASD units. These units act like a home room, but the teaching is still done in the mainstream school. These units only account for a tiny tiny percentage of the children with special needs. The vast majority of children with special needs in the UK (eg all children with dyslexia, ADD) are taught in mainstream schools and share all their classes with children who don't have special needs. I believe that about 20% of children in the UK are now diagnosed as having special needs, and the vast majority are taught in mainstream schools. Dahliarose (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, I am very aware of the differences of terminology between countries, who share the same basic language, and even between researchers and professionals when discussing an identical topic, condition, or symptom. This can be very confusing for visitors or readers not familiar with the terminology, and wording being used. So may be the inclusion of a Glossary of terminology options used in these various countries may help both editors, and visitors alike, and help this article have more global content and understanding. providing only a single form of terminology will serve to exclude those who have been educated using a different form of terminology to describe the same thing. The problem is due to a lack of co-operation between the various national and international professional bodies, researchers etc, who seem incapable to agree to use a single form of terminology, so Wikipedia needs to reflect the various type of terminology being used to help all who use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. dolfrog (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem is that Dahlia does not believe that children in the UK with dyslexia (for example) have any intermediate options. They are always, always, always either given special help with their reading in a corner of the same classroom with all the other non-dyslexic, busy children or they are sent to a completely separate school in a completely separate building where they never see a non-disabled child. According to Dahlia, there are no special units, no resource rooms, no reading specialists that see only small groups of students with disabilities in separate, special classrooms, no speech classes, etc. You're either "mainstream" and lumped in with everyone else for 100% of the school day, or you're "special" and completely isolated in a school that has no non-disabled students in it at all.

So perhaps you could do this: imagine a UK student, maybe about 10 years old, with severe dyslexia in a larger city. Can you tell us from your experience whether that student spends 100% of his time in a classroom with two dozen non-disabled children, or whether that student sometimes leaves the typical, mixed-ability classroom to spend time in a classroom with only a teacher (one-on-one instruction) or with only other students with disabilities who also need similar help (small group/resource room instruction)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dolfrog's suggestion is a very good idea. I know that some other projects hsve got glossaries. It's not just special education but the whole field of education where there are different terminologies and it would be good to have a page describing the different usages. It's just a question of finding people with the time to compose such a page. In answer to WhatamIdoing's comments, the point I'm trying to make has nothing to do with differences in the UK and the US. I'm trying to look at the global picture. WhatamIdoing seems to think that every country works in the same way as the US, and can't see the bigger picture. In England there are some schools which do have special units for children with special needs but they are few and far between, and only take the extreme cases and there's probably only one or two such schools in each local authority (similar to US school districts). With regards to the situation in England most children with special needs (dyslexia, ADD) are in mainstream schools. A 10-year-old child with dyslexia would indeed spend his entire day in a mainstream class and would not be withdrawn for any special classes. If he has a "statement" he would get a learning support assistant who would help him in the mainstream classroom. The LSAs will often take small groups of children but usually within the mainstream class rather than withdrawing the pupils. We certainly don't have such a thing as reading specialists or speech classes in state schools (ie, government-run schools), though I think some LSAs might try and specialise in particular subjects. There are, however, some private schools that specialise in teaching children with dyslexia, and have special facilities. The former Education Secretary Ruth Kelly famously withdrew her son from the local state school and sent him to a private school because she was unhappy with the provision for dyslexia. Dahliarose (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, Dahliarose paints a very acurate description of the situation in the UK. There have been many so called reviews and reports regarding Special Needs provision in the UK, all of which have been commissioned by a government of one political party or another, but as soon as the other party wins the next election the previous reports is put on the shelf to gather dust while the new government pursues its own ideology or the marketing needs of its supporting lobbyists. A UK joint party parliamentary committee described the UK Special Needs provision in 2009 as "not fit for purpose" which has been repeated this year by the government minister responsible for Special Needs. For the last 10 years I have been helping to run the UK support organisation for those who have Auditory Processing Disorder, one of the underlying cognitive causes of the developmental dyslexia symptom. The quality of support is very patchy, and varies from school to school, town to town, and county to county. There is no consistency, some areas do not accept that dyslexia exists, as a means of avoiding providing the support required. Money is the key to the lack of provision and more specifically politicians trying to avoid increasing taxation, both at a local and national level, to pay for the required extra support. In 1984, the government of the day changed the national teacher training curriculum Special Educational Needs was a core subject, but they changed that so that it became an optional subject, and as a result we now have generations of teachers who have little or no understanding of Special Education issues. To take your case of a 10 year old dyslexic, currently i very much doubt that he or she would be diagnosed as having dyslexia let alone getting the support they need. This is the fault of the dyslexia industry that has tied a diagnosis of dyslexia to being able to use the remedial program they market, which is phonics based, which is of little use to those who have an auditory processing disorder or attention issues as the cause of their dyslexic symptom. Another Money based problem. As you are probably aware as you have followed my many contributions to Wikipedia there is a great need to define the clinical or neurological issues that can cause the dyslexic symptom both for those who are born with developmental dyslexia, and for those who acquire dyslexia due to some form or brain injury or progressive illness, which may require another glossary of terminology. Most schools in the UK if they do provide any support for dyslexics would happen in one corner of a main stream classroom, and very rarely in a specially room set aside for such activities. dolfrog (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Here in the United States, a separate classroom is a term to describe a setting that is more restrictive (compared to other setting i.e. resource room) for students with disabilities whose needs cannot be addressed in the regular classroom. It should never be used as the only method of provision for special education services as other options are available such as team teaching if it works for the student. There are such special classes that allow teacher aides to be assigned for every 3 students. If there are 12 students in a special class, there can be 4 teacher aides in the class. However there isn't always a special class available as educators believe students with severe educational disabilities are best to have their needs addressed in a separate school. Other educators want them in the mainstream school. (Having special classes in the mainstream school would ensure students with disabilities the opportunity for inclusion or full inclusion.) In the United States, when to include and when to separate is a source of constant debate. I think it would be better to fully explain how special education services can be provided. Plantinthewindow (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So do we finally all agree now that there really are some students in the UK who do not spend 100% of the school day in a classroom with non-disabled students?

The fact that we have identified four "places" for providing services (100% of the day with non-disabled students, mostly with non-disabled students, mostly not with non-disabled students, and 0% of the day with non-disabled students) does not mean that the students are divided up equally between the four options. Even if it is "very rare", if even one student in the entire country is taught "in a specially room set aside for such activities", then that intermediate level of separating disabled students really does happen in the UK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it could happen in the UK but it is not part of our system. This argument is symptomatic of a common problem in comparative education, people simply denying that different ways of thinking exist. I once listened to French postgraduate students telling a speaker that she was completely wrong, a baccalaureate course is two years, not three - she was talking about Catalonia, where she was an expert. I think the US categorisation should be in the article because it has some influence in the English speaking world. But it is not the only way of categorising the different kinds of provision. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the methods of provision be removed except for the exclusion and special schools + history of special schools as they should be integrated with the rest of the article. Not all schools use these different approaches to provide special education services. The UK does something similar to mainstreaming but it is not the same. There is no such thing as "separate classes" or "separate classroom". The US may teach special-needs children in regular classroom settings but they do not spend all of the school day with students who do not have special educational needs as special education supports must be factored in. Even if students have severe educational disabilities in the US, a full-inclusion program is possible if they are still mainstreamed in the regular school while still attending special classes. Lakakalo (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

So, because not everyone does a particualr thing we should not mention its existence? I'm also curious as to how so many new users seem to pop up just to discuss this one subject on this one talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue here is that we need to use a universal vocabulary, that is based on reality and not the idealistic dreams of one particular population, to make the article GLOBAL. Otherwise the article does not meet the Global requirement. So we need to explain all of the variations and how things actually happen day to day and not the dream theory of WhatamIdoing and others. We keep on demonstrating that there is a need to decribe Special ~education as it is in real life globally and not just how all in the USA want to make out it is in some form of USA based fantacy of how the world should be. So a glossary is the answer so that those in the USA can begin to learn about life outside of the countries borders which will probably be a new experience for many of them. dolfrog (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need to use a global vocabulary and a glossary is a good idea. The problem is not just the vocabulary. We need to find a way of describing special education in relation to how it works in the the majority of countries in the world NOT in relation to the very specific situation in the US. The US practices of "mainstreaming" and educating children in "resource rooms" are the exceptions not the rule. It's fine to mention in the article that this is how it is done in the US or North America, but the article should not be written as it currently is to imply that the US practices are the norm. Dahliarose (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "universal vocabulary", just like there is no "universal vocabulary" for the motor vehicle used to deliver bulky objects to stores: is that a "lorry" or a "truck"? There is no universal vocabulary.

Dolfrog, we are describing "all of the variations". These are the variations:

1. 100% of day spent in a classroom with some non-disabled students
2. >50% of day spent in a classroom with some non-disabled students
3. ≤50% of day spent in a classroom with some non-disabled students
4. 0% of day spent in a classroom with some non-disabled students

Look at that list. Can you think of a single variation other than those four?

Dahlia does not want all four options to be mentioned. She wants #1 and #4 to be emphasized, and #2 and #3—even though options #2 and #3 are used for many tens of thousands of children in dozens of countries around the world—to be deleted, because she believes that they are rarely used in her country. Her idea of "global" here seems to be "make it look like the UK's most common practice, while ignoring the hundreds of UK children in special units and specially equipped classrooms".

"Global" does not mean "used in the UK". It means "used around the world". Why should we make this article look like the UK system, and less like the systems used in Africa, Asia, and the Americas? Why should we delete the middle options to make it look more like the UK system and less like the German system? That's not global: that's parochial.

These four options are used around the world. Different countries prefer different options, but when you look at the variety, every single child receiving special services in any classroom anywhere in the world is receiving those special services in one of these four kinds of classrooms.

If you disagree—if you think that zero students are ever placed in one of these situations, or that there is a fifth situation in which a student receives services in a classroom—then please let me know. But please do not keep saying "it's not global" when you really mean "it's entirely global, and not UK-focused". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the four numbered situations could be a starting point for us. Of course they are only on one scale, how much time the students of interest (whether we call them disabled is another whole discussion) are with other students. "During the day" is immediately a complication. What if they attend drop-in sessions in the lunch break? In France, elementary school children who are struggling stay after school for extra classes - most do not have a special educational needs label but some may, especially dyslexia, I could look it up. In England too, children might attend a homework club, does it matter if it is in the public library or the school, whether the facilitator has had dyslexia training or not? Do we assume that every school day is roughly the same, or could they be in a different situation on a Tuesday as on a Thursday? I know of a special school for children with severe learning difficulties, where some students spend time with children in a non-special school one day a week for music. I point these things out not to be awkward but so that we can cover the complexity of the situations in the different countries. The same policy concerns are found everywhere. How to provide the best education for all the children. But the interventions have to take account of school systems that are radically different from each other. Just take "outdoor play". Everyone agrees that is good for children, including children with special educational needs. But how to organise it must be different in an urban area from a rural one, whether teachers see it as part of their job to supervise play, whether parents come in and volunteer... So many variables. We need to find a language to explain it all. If we introduce a terminology and say "this is used in the USA and in some of the global literature", fine, no problem. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing "It means "used around the world"." We know the problem is you want it to be as used in the USA which if you had not noticed is only a small part of the world. Unfortunately this is common problem we experience from many US residents who believe that the USA is the whole world, and that they have no need to try to understand the differences of others, seems to be part of USA culture. dolfrog (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have argued before if we are going to have a four-point scale in the article it needs to be backed up by suitable references. I've found references which back up the claim that this four-point scale applies to special education in America. I cannot find a single reference to support such a classification on a global basis. If someone can find such a reference I'd be quite happy. The examples we cite from around the world in the article support a three-point system: no schooling, education in mainstream schools and education in special schools. Precisely how special needs children are taught in mainstream schools varies from country to country, but the American model is the exception not the norm. I would just like this article to be applicable to all countries, and not written purely from an American perspective as it is at the moment. There are many countries in the world where children are lucky to get any education at all. In these countries if children do have any special needs they get no special treatment whatsoever. Where are the references, for example, to support the existence of special classrooms to educate children in African schools for part of the day? Such facilities simply don't exist. If a child is physically disabled in most African countries he probably doesn't even get an education at all because he is unable to walk to school. If he's dyslexic he'll be in an ordinary school with everyone else. At the moment the situation we have here is rather like trying to write an article about football which focuses solely on American football and completely ignores the fact that football is a completely different game for the rest of the world. I have previously raised the issue of the use of the word "disabled" which seems to have different connotations in American English and British English. In British English disabled normally means "physically disabled" and we tend to use the term "learning difficulties" to describe children who are "mentally disabled". "Disabled" seems to be a somewhat ambiguous term to use purely in the American sense of the word in an article intended for a global readership. Dahliarose (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, how about just supporting my proposal? Then we can have consensus to remove the methods of provision except for the exclusion and special schools + history of special schools as they should be integrated with the rest of the article. Lakakalo (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think removal of the section on methods of provision is currently justified because of the lack of references to support this structure. Dahliarose (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the other editors are likely to support the proposal and I am pretty sure that removing methods of provision section would likely be reverted by them. Should someone request dispute resolution instead? Lakakalo (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, "no schooling" is irrelevant here, because we're talking about how schooling is provided. There's a lot of variety in "in the mainstream school", and we need to provide more detail than that. So given a goal of providing more detail than "sometimes they're not hidden away in schools only for SEN kids, and sometimes they are", how would you describe the variety of what happens under the category of "attending a mainstream school"? I assure you that many sources make a point of discussing these varieties. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are large numbers of children in the world with special needs who are not receiving the required education is extremely relevant. This is a global encyclopaedia. At the moment the article is focusing on the microscopic details of special education in America, but the reader needs to have the bigger picture. It is not a question of how I would describe this type of education or how you would describe this type of education. The question is what the sources say. At present the sources do not support what is written in the article. I have proposed a source below which could be used as a basis for providing the global picture. If we can at least have agreement on the use of appropriate global sources then we might be able to do some constructive editing to produce an article that is relevant and understandable for everyone and not just Americans. Dahliarose (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go read the section. Pay special attention to the list item that begins with the word "Exclusion". Make sure that you don't stop until after the sentence that says 23 million SEN kids worldwide receive no services at all. Go through the article history and figure out who added that sourced sentence. Then come back here and tell me again that I'm determined not to mention the fact that some countries fail to provide services. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment above in which you stated that '"no schooling" is irrelevant here'. Dahliarose (talk)

When the question is "Where are children receiving SEN services?", then the fact that some children aren't receiving services is irrelevant. It is also, as you noticed when you looked at the page, already addressed.

The purpose of this section is to describe the settings in which services are provided. You are objecting to the description because it names more than two places, because you're convinced that there are only two places worth mentioning, even though your own country uses at least three. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am objecting to this section is because it is not backed up by reliable sources. You cannot use US-specific sources to represent a worldwide view. Where non-US sources have been used they have been used inappropriately, eg, as has already been discussed above in relation to "segregation". 16:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well put. Despite all her protests there hasn't been one listing of specific sources that are "biased." Not one. Be careful, though, whatamidoing, because if you are not from the U.K. and thus you won't be able to appreciate them the way she can. Because, you know, living in a country by default makes you understand the educational system better. Well, I can say from reading what dhaliarose posts here she proves that theory wrong! Also, even though beebleborx has pointed out that WP:SOFIXIT is probably the best course of action, instead of an edit war, she has the Olympics to watch. Many important things like that, you know, to take care of. Instead of actually editing the article or stopping her whining that we're just going to revert it anyway.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Salamanca Statement

I came across this important document from UNESCO which really ought to be mentioned in the article and is particularly useful for providing the global context on special educational needs: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf. The report dates from 1994. I don't know if there is a more recent report. Note that it says on page 13: "The vast majority of students with special needs, especially in rural areas, are as a consequence provided with no services whatsoever. Indeed, in many developing countries, it is estimated that fewer than 1 per cent of children with special educational needs are included in existing provision". Here is a report which describes the European model: https://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/key-principles-in-special-needs-education/keyp-en.pdf. Note that on page 15 it says: "at times, small groups of learners with SEN require particular attention and some withdrawal sessions may enable those learners to be maintained in the mainstream classroom. It is important that these arrangements have a natural and flexible character and are not confined to learners with SEN but are used occasionally for all learners in the classroom". I think one of the problems here is that "inclusion" has a very precise meaning in America with children spending just half the day in mainstream schools. In other countries inclusion means inclusion in mainstream education and children are much more integrated than they are in the American model. Dahliarose (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion in the US actually means spending more than half the day in a classroom with other non-disabled students. Most SEN students in the US spend 100% of their day in a regular classroom, or very nearly 100%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If so why are you so insistent that there should be this artificial extra category of "mainstreaming"? You still haven't supplied any sources to back up the four-point scale you want to use and to prove that it applies to the whole world and not just the US. Dahliarose (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am insistent that we show the gradation of approaches: some children with SEN spend all or almost all of their time in regular, everyday classrooms; others spend none or almost none of their time around non-disabled children—and then there are the ones in the middle! Some SEN kids spend 40 or 60 percent of their school week in a regular classroom and the rest in a specialized SEN-kids-only classroom. Introducing a category that deals with this middling group keeps their situation from being marginalized.

I am curious why you are so determined to make sure nobody knows that an approach exists that is halfway between "dump him in a regular classroom and hope that's good enough" and "hide him away in a school where normal kids and parents will never see him". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly stated, this article is not about the opinions of individual Wikipedia writers it is about sources. We are required to provide reliable sources to back up our statements. If you are insistent on having a "halfway house" then you need to find references to show that your four stage system is equally applicable to the rest of the world. I've spent a lot of time looking for sources. I can find sources to show that this is how the system works in America. I cannot find sources to show that this system applies to the rest of the world. Dahliarose (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have to prove that this system is "equally applicable to the rest of the world". It's not equally applicable. No system is equally applicable to the entire world. Different countries do different things. American schools use less 100% segregation than German and UK schools. That doesn't mean that 100% segregation shouldn't be mentioned. American schools never deny disabled children some sort of educational services. That doesn't mean that the complete denial of services by other countries shouldn't be mentioned. We're not trying to describe what happens to "the majority". We're trying to describe what happens to all the kids, which means describing all of the options that all of the countries have taken, even if what happens in one country isn't done at all, or isn't done very commonly, in another country.

You, on the other hand, are trying to remove accurate, verifiable information that accurately describes what happens to millions of children in many countries, including your own, simply because you don't think that it describes what happens to the majority of SEN students in your country. Guess what? More than 99% of the world's students don't live in the UK! This article needs to describe everyone, not just the less than 1% that live in your own country and happen to mostly be handled with either 100% inclusion or 100% segregation in a special school.

I will not agree to a description that pretends that SEN kids in a UK special unit are receiving services in the same setting as a SEN kid in a regular classroom in the same school building in the same town in the UK. It's fundamentally dishonest, and I won't agree to it. I wouldn't agree to it even if the UK were the only schol system we were writing about. Those kids deserve to have their intermediate situation recognized.

And I note that I have provided sources repeatedly, including sources from Ofsted and UNESCO, and you have repeatedly rejected them as "just being about the American system" if they don't agree with your apparently quite limited preconceived idea of what happens to UK students. I don't see any value in throwing more sources at you when your response is that any source disproving your odd stance is unreliable, no matter who wrote or published it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem WhatamIdoing is that you do not live in the UK, and have no idea what you are talking about. The theory is fine but what happens in real life is as Dahliarose has described. Yes those who have learning disabilities need support specific to their disability, unfortunately in the UK the support they need is not provided, and the various agencies, and governing bodies blame each other for the lack of basic support. So time for you to stop dreaming and live in reality and listen to those who have to live wit the situation in the UK, and not as you would prefer it in your idealised dream world. dolfrog (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never said that all students are being adequately supported. I have only said that there are a few different ways of handling students who do get services, and that those different ways involve more than the two options of "always leave in the regular classroom" and "isolate in a completely separate special school", which are the only two systems that Dahlia wants to mention, even though (1) more than two options exist in the world and (2) more than two options exist in the UK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never once suggested this article should be just about the UK. Indeed, I have repeatedly argued that this article should have a global focus. A global focus is not a US focus as at present. I suggested ages ago that the basic sources that should be used to define the terminology and concepts should be international sources which have studied special education not just in one country but in many countries. See Talk:Special education/Archive 3#Removing US perspective where I suggested a range of sources. One US editor responded that these sources were "random" and "not useful" at which point I gave up on this article. There is not a single source from UNESCO at present. If we could at least agree to use reliable international sources such as UNESCO then perhaps we could make some progress. I have repeatedly challenged the "methods of provision" section because of the lack of sources to show that this structure applies to any country other than the US. OFSTED is fine as a source for an article about special education in England, but is not much help for special education in any other country of the world. I think some of the confusion here is because WhatamIdoing has not understood that inclusion has a specific but very narrow meaning in the US. In British English inclusion or inclusive education simply means inclusion in a mainstream school which covers all the possibilities. See for instance this article on the Open University website which in fact offers a very broad definition: http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397669&section=3.2. I can only assume, too, that WhatamIdoing has never been to the UK or been inside an English school. If so she would understand that we have no such a thing as 'regular classrooms' and 'special classrooms'. We do have a tiny number of schools with special units or resources. In the school I'm familiar with that has one such unit the children still have their usual lessons (maths and English) with all the other pupils. The unit is a single room where the children can escape if it all gets too much for them at lunchtime or whatever. This is in line with the recommendations of the Salamanca Statement. It is of course quite absurd to suggest that schools in India, Africa, etc have "special classrooms" or resource rooms or whatever you want to call them. The children are lucky to receive any education at all, as you would realise if you actually visited any of these countries. Dahliarose (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dahlia, do you even listen to what you're saying? Compare these contradictory statements:

• "we have no such a thing as 'regular classrooms' and 'special classrooms'."
• We do have a tiny number of schools with special units or resources.

Now which one of those is true? It is not possible for the UK to simultaneously have "no such a thing" as classrooms just for students with disabilities, and to also have schools that have those very settings whose existence you denied in the immediately preceding sentence. So which is it? Do some UK SEN students get to use a classroom designed and intended for SEN kids, or not? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I presume in American English that a classroom means the same as in British English and it is a room where children receive their lessons. Both of the above statements are true. The resource is more about providing specialist staffing. It is not a specially equipped classroom where special needs children learn to read and write. It is not the equivalent of your American resource rooms. The children still have their lessons in mainstream classrooms. Dahliarose (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatami doing, you are wasting your time. It appears Dhalia doesn't listen to what she is saying (to answer your question). edits and diffs substantiate this. We're bickering with a woman who has an agenda, and is not privvy to research. Also, again: That being said, as an editor when I read a statement by Dhalia rose that claims: [whatamidoing] needs to recognise that editors who live in the UK understand their own education system and its terminology better than she does I have to laugh. Because the premise of that statement is insane. If wikipedia were to adopt that approach then we'd just assume that people from Australia--regardless of their education, background, etc.--must be more knowledgeable than anyone else who lives outside of the country in regards to Ayers Rock. Even distinguished geologists from North Dakota who write papers on the rock and research it, they don't stack up to the guy from Perth. See, because he is from Australia. By default he knows more than you do about his country and everything in it. So there. Yeah, that kind of statement reeks of someone who has an axe to grind, and it seems that, unlike whatamidoing and other editors who actually contribute to this article, they have an agenda Note, Dhalia does not answer your questions. Any of them! She is arguing for the sake of arguing. For someone who has "non wikipedia things to do" she finds ample time to bicker and never add good research to this article!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think it likely that Dahlia can tell me whether those special units, which appear to be rooms with walls, a floor, and a roof, and which appear to be where some thousands of UK kids with SEN receive their lessons, and which do not appear to contain any non-SEN students, constitute "classrooms" in her mind, and therefore I presume she can tell me whether it's true that the UK has no classrooms just for SEN kids, or whether it's true that the UK does have classrooms used just for SEN kids. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)