Justin J W Powell

Comparing special education : origins to contemporary paradoxes

In todays schools the number of students who receive additional resources to access the curriculum is growing rapidly, and the ongoing expansion of special education is among the most significant worldwide educational developments of the past century. Yet even among developed democracies the range of access varies hugely, from one student in twenty to one student in three. In contemporary conflicts about educational standards and accountability, special education plays a key role as it draws the boundaries between exclusion and inclusion. Comparing Special Education unites in-depth comparative and historical studies with analyses of global trends, with a particular focus on special and inclusive education in the United States, England, France, and Germany. The authors examine the causes and consequences of various institutional and organizational developments, illustrate differences in forms of educational governance and social policy priorities, and highlight the evolution of social logics from segregation of students with special educational needs to their inclusion in local schools.

Analyzing the nexus of higher education and vocational training in Europe: a comparative‐institutional framework

Given ongoing economic, political and social transformation, skill formation systems are under pressure to change. This is acknowledged in European declarations – Bologna for higher education and Copenhagen for vocational training – and various national reform processes. The omnipresent convergence hypothesis is that these international pressures will result in national skill formation systems becoming more similar. However, if these systems throughout Europe are to match the dominant anglophone models, which value general higher education more than specific vocational training, those countries with strong apprenticeship traditions are especially challenged. Due to countries’ differential starting points, the convergence hypothesis needs to be tested, taking the shifting complementary and competitive relationship between the two organizational fields of higher education and vocational training into account. Ideational internationalization, and normative and regulative Europeanization, as manifest in the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, require analysis as factors driving institutional change in post‐secondary higher and vocational educational systems. Key questions are: will common trends and challenges lead to cross‐national convergence of skill formation systems? Or do national responses instead indicate that adaptations are mainly consistent with specific cultural and structural characteristics? This article discusses why, in order to answer such questions adequately, in‐depth comparative research should overcome the persistent division in research on these two sectors by examining the nexus of higher education and vocational training.

The Emergent European Model in Skill Formation: Comparing Higher Education and Vocational Training in the Bologna and Copenhagen Processes

Proposing an alternative to the American model, intergovernmental reform initiatives in Europe have developed and promote a comprehensive European model of skill formation. What ideals, standards, and governance are proposed in this new pan-European model? This model responds to heightened global competition among “knowledge societies” as it challenges national systems to improve. The authors thus compare this emergent European model with the historically influential models of Germany, France, Great Britain, and the United States. To what extent does the European model resemble these traditionally influential national models? The authors report findings of a theory-guided content analysis of official European policy documents in higher education and vocational training from 1998 to 2010. They find that while the European model is a bricolage that integrates diverse characteristics of influential models, the ambitious goals and standards codified in the twin Bologna and Copenhagen processes in higher education and vocational training offer a new model to compete internationally. Dozens of countries now seek to implement these principles. This comparative analysis finds different visions for the future of skill formation on both sides of the Atlantic.

SPECIAL EDUCATION AND THE RISK OF BECOMING LESS EDUCATED

ABSTRACT With educational expansion and rising standards, ever more students are being transferred into special education. These programs serve children and youth with ‘special educational needs’ (SEN), a heterogeneous group with social, ethnic, linguistic, physical, and intellectual disadvantages. An increasing proportion of students at risk of leaving secondary school without qualifications participate in special education. While most European countries aim to replace segregated schools and separate classes with school integration and inclusive education, cross-national comparisons of special educations diverse student bodies show considerable disparities in rates of SEN classification, provided learning opportunities, and educational attainments. Analyses of European special education demographics and organizations emphasize institutional instead of individual explanations. Findings from Germany and the United States further demonstrate that which students bear the greatest risk of becoming less educated depends principally on the institutionalization of special education systems and on definitions of ‘special educational needs’.

Why are higher education participation rates in Germany so low? Institutional barriers to higher education expansion

Countries around the world have witnessed educational expansion at all levels, leading to the massification of tertiary education and training. Tertiary education has become a major factor of economic competitiveness in an increasingly science‐based global economy and a key response to shifts in national labour markets. Within the EU, the reform of skill formation systems has been advanced by the Lisbon strategy, with the Bologna and Copenhagen processes in higher education (HE) and vocational education and training (VET) articulating and diffusing overarching goals in European skill formation. If European benchmarks call for at least 40% of all 30‐ to 34‐year‐olds to hold a tertiary‐level certificate, Germany exhibits a relatively low proportion of each cohort entering HE and attaining that qualification level (28%). We analyse this ‘German exceptionalism’, locating a range of factors in the educational system: the institutional logic of segregation, the structure of secondary schooling, the division or schism between the organisational fields of VET and HE, and limited permeability throughout. Regardless of isomorphic pressures that led Germany to quickly implement undergraduate bachelors (BA) and graduate masters (MA) courses of study, these factors limit the extent of HE expansion visible among other European countries.

Migration and ethnic group disproportionality in special education: An exploratory study

Issues of educational equity and opportunity cannot be understood without regard to special education, as a key response to disabilities, disadvantages, and difficulties. Likewise, globalization cannot be understood without regard to cross‐border migration and minority group status in society. Illuminating the nexus of these, research into disproportionality in special education, defined as the over‐ or under‐representation of particular ethnic groups in such programs, shows that this, too, has become a global phenomenon. Comparing Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the USA, this article explores international trends in migration and discusses the globalization of ethnic group disproportionality – as a primary indicator of inequity in education. We conclude by questioning the functions of special education in an era of globalization and identifying the challenges ahead that these findings indicate.

To Segregate or to Separate? Special Education Expansion and Divergence in the United States and Germany

Over the past two hundred years in the United States and Germany, special educational systems have been institutionalized to facilitate access to learning opportunities for children with disabilities, difficulties, and disadvantages. Originally heralded as innovative, the positive views of these mainly segregating and separating educational facilities have been increasingly challenged. Despite a multitude of local, national, and international reform initiatives, Germany continues to serve the vast majority of children with special educational needs (SEN) in segregated special schools, whereas in the United States nearly all children with SEN are integrated in general schools, though most spend part of their school day outside the general classroom. This institutional analysis compares the genesis, expansion, and persistence of special education as a multitrack, separating system in the United States and as a dual-track, segregating system in Germany. The ongoing diffusion of special education has increased access and available services for students with SEN. However, special education’s institutionalized organizations also constrain the opportunities that contemporary decision makers, interest groups, and individual gatekeepers and participants have to realize school integration and inclusive education, which have become increasingly—though not universally—accepted goals. Both important similarities and considerable differences in the institutionalization of special education will be emphasized here. Since World War II, there has been not only an extraordinary expansion of educational systems but also convergence in their ideological charters throughout the world (Ramirez and Boli-Bennett 1982; Ramirez and Boli 1987), with compulsory schooling joined by education for all and inclusive education. Nevertheless, “cultural forces for educational convergence are working against the structural forces which condition the endurance of different systems of education” (Archer 1984, 203). This analysis, which explores the growth and inertia of (special) educational systems in the United States and Germany, concentrates on these factors: societal values, educational ideologies, and disability paradigms; interests of professionals, par

Sign of our times? Revis(it)ing the International Symbol of Access

The International Symbol of Access (ISA), used in a variety of specific locations to represent purposely facilitated access, has become ubiquitous throughout the world within just a few decades. Found wherever people move in physical space and needing to navigate environmental barriers, this symbol is among the most widely recognized representations of disability. While it provides daily interactions with issues of accessibility and disability, its purposes and design in different cultural contexts are neither obvious nor uncontested. We sketch the origin, goals and critiques of this prominent symbol and discuss its functions, from way showing to identity construction and advocacy/activism. Finally, we examine current proposals for alternative symbols.

Legitimating school segregation. The special education profession and the discourse of learning disability in Germany

School segregation continues to be understood as legitimate in Germany. To explain why, we chart the development of the learning disability discourse and the special education profession, providing insights into the ongoing expansion of segregated special schooling. The discourse analysis of articles published between 1908 and 2004 in the special education professional association journal, Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, uncovers the knowledge base of special education that led to the rise of its main category, ‘learning disability,’ and school type, the support school (then: Hilfsschule, now: Förderschule). Despite critical junctures over the twentieth century, special education’s dominant discourse and school structures exhibit remarkable continuity. We find professional authority with respect to ‘learning disability’ is a key factor in the persistence and continued growth of segregated special education. Scientific discourse continues to legitimate the classification of pupils as ‘learning disabled’ and their subsequent allocation to segregated schools.

The Bologna Process's Model of Mobility in Europe: The Relationship of its Spatial and Social Dimensions

Cross-border mobility is among the pillars of internationality in higher education. Understood as central to educational and economic growth for individuals and societies, mobility also should facilitate social cohesion. Yet those who can afford spatial mobility are unevenly distributed; elites benefit in far greater measure. Policymakers in Europe aim to bolster the competitiveness and attractiveness of European higher education, especially through enhanced mobility of students and staff. Extending beyond the successes of Erasmus, the Bologna process defines a new model of mobility in higher education to foster spatial mobility, but how is the social selectivity of spatial mobility addressed? Based on a theory-guided content analysis of official Bologna policy documents, the authors examine the principles and standards of mobility. Which dimensions of mobility are mentioned in these declarations and communiqués from 1998 to 2012? To what extent are spatial mobilitys social significance and selection processes reflected? The authors find that the dimensions, benefits and effects of spatial mobility have been mainly taken for granted, and both its social selectivity and its effects on social mobility understated. However, if the Bologna process is to facilitate social inclusion, inequalities must be addressed. The authors argue that if the 47 signatory countries to the Bologna process simply follow the principles espoused in this model, considerable disparities in participation in international exchange are likely to persist, reproducing social reproduction of dis/advantages.