Probably, the categorization of disabilities is one of the most debated topics that evoke a lot of controversies. These controversies arise from different opinions about the existence of this classification system. In this regard, differing opinions concerning the appropriateness of the system have been expressed by various parties such as teachers, academicians, and administrators among others. Some argue that the authorities should initiate, support, and develop the system to ensure that learners with disabilities are given specialized and relevant attention. On the other hand, the affected individuals contend that the categorization should be removed to pave the way for the integration of assistances where all needs are attended without classification regardless of the student’s physical and mental status. While attempting to determine the appropriateness of this classification, researchers have conducted detailed inquiries concerning the topic. This paper will review the literature that has been documented in line with the validity of the classification. Subsequently, it will draw relevant conclusions and recommendations to support the continuation of categorizing special-needs learners based on the reviewed literature.
Literature Review
Anderson and Corbett (2008) argue that it is unacceptable to discard the classification of needs in special education considering that disabled students do not suffer from the same disabilities. In order to understand the validity of this categorization, Anderson and Corbett (2008) suggest that one must understand the diversity of difficulties experienced by learners with disabilities when studying. In this regard, learners with disabilities include individuals who are blind, deaf, hypersensitive, and/or students without some parts of the bodie. All these students experience different, critical, and special difficulties that impair the ability of the student to study normally (Anderson & Corbett, 2008).
The authors exemplify their argument by stating that learners who suffer from adverse disabilities, such as blindness and deafness, cannot be compared closely to those who have mild problems. For example, a blind student who cannot use visual perception cannot be compared with another one who does not walk. The authors elaborate that the needs of such students cannot be handled in the same way (Anderson & Corbett, 2008). It follows that the idea of teaching the students together could disadvantage them since the required approaches are different.
Boyle (2008) restates this position by pointing out that the elimination of such a system is uninformed, insensitive, and odd move because it is based on weak premises claiming to prevent the profiling of people. While defending the ideology of classifying special needs, he states that the appropriateness of categorizing requirements should be determined using the intensions of grouping rather than people’s perception (Boyle, 2008). This implies that inquiries aiming at evaluating the validity of this act should not consider the diverse opinions of the people strongly. Instead, they should focus on the intentions of the categorizers. In order to substantiate his argument, he contends that the core intention of categorizing needs is to provide each category with the skills that are relevant to them (Boyle, 2008). Additionally, he states that the defined categories provide classified statistics which help the government determine the highly prevalent disabilities. As a result, these comparative statistics form the basis that the government uses when planning for the proportion in which it provides resources for special education (Boyle, 2008). Lastly, the author states that the categories assist in efficient funding because the government can send money according to the number of people and resources needed in each class of needs.
Rose and Shevlin (2010) make a crucial sentiment while supporting the ideology of categorizing needs and dismissing the elimination of the classification. In their view, classifying disabilities serves as the spotlight to the public (Rose & Shevlin, 2010). It evokes special social attributes regarding specific categories of needs which assist in making advocacies and initiatives about the disabilities (Rose & Shevlin, 2010). For example, special education for the blind has undergone a profound development owing to the special attention granted to it. Researchers have been developing modern devices quickly to help in teaching the students. This development has helped in conquering the academic menace that was posed by blindness (Rose & Shevlin, 2010). The same has been realized in developing technological techniques which ensure efficient learning for deaf and dumb learners. For example, teachers design sustainable presentations which include visual illustrations to supplement their disabilities (Rose & Shevlin, 2010). This shows that the classification makes the advocacies focus on specific disabilities. Subsequently, this concentration on strict categories leads to specialization and effectiveness of such initiatives.
Sack (2008) supports the categorization of needs by arguing that it presents a basis for offering training to the teachers. In this regard, the training systems are usually categorized according to the classes of disabilities. For example, there could be teachers to train the deaf and blind students. Similarly, there are teachers who handle students with dyslexia or hypersensitivity. Those categories make it easy to offer specialized knowledge on helping the students (Sack, 2008). Otherwise, if the needy students were taught by the same group of teachers, specialization, and perfection of skills might not have been realized. As a result, the trained teachers could be offering substandard services to the students. At the same time, the classification of needs is the basis for establishing schools for learners with disabilities (Sack, 2008). For example, we have schools and colleges for the blind and the deaf students. These schools specialize in developing techniques for offering sufficient academic knowledge. Sack (2008) hypothesizes that the specialization of schools could be efficient in the research and development of schools that integrate all the disabled students. It also helps in the development of specialized assessment methods and behavioral interventions which are useful to teachers and students.
Lastly, Wadlington (2008) expresses concern about the categorization of needs and their appropriateness in special education. The author states that classifying disabled students purports homogeneity of needs in class and schools. This homogeneity enables teachers to deliver information with ease and focus. It avoids the confusion that could be evoked by handling students with diverse needs that require different approaches.
Conclusion
It is evident that there have been profound controversies on the categorization of needs and disabilities. In addition, it cannot be disputed that researchers have been evaluating the appropriateness of this system profoundly. Based on their documented literature, various researchers have supported the classification of disabilities. In this discussion, it has been made clear that most researchers support this system because it ensures that special education has a focused role rather than a general one. As a result, it could be concluded that categorization is the best way to offer efficient and effective special education.
References
Anderson, P., & Corbett, L. (2008). Literature Circles for Students with Learning Disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(1), 25-33.
Boyle, J. (2008). Reading Strategies for Students with Mild Disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(1), 3-9.
Rose, R., & Shevlin, M. (2010). Special and Inclusive Education in the Republic Of Ireland: Reviewing the Literature from 2000 To 2009. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(4), 359-373.
Sack, S. (2008). Spungin: When You Have a Visually Impaired Student with Multiple Disabilities in your Classroom: A Guide For Teachers, New York: AFB Press, 2004. Review: Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 37(2), 95-96.
Wadlington, P. (2008). Helping Students with Mathematical Disabilities to Succeed. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 2-7.