When Opposites Attract: The Alchemy of an Adhocrat and a Bureaucrat

• In Event: 35.052 - Beyond the Nod to Justice in Disability Studies in Education: A Symposium Revisiting the Scholarship of Thomas M. Skrtic

Abstract

I first met Tom in the spring semester of 1990. I was a graduate student in the school psychology program at the University of Kansas. Tom taught the special education exceptionalities course that semester. I was not familiar with Tom’s work and reputation at the time. My first impression of Tom was based on his appearance: long hair down to his shoulders; fanny pack at his waist (which I later learned held a pipe and tobacco); and a faded blue sweatshirt on his back, which would make multiple reappearances over the course of the semester. It would be fair to say that in many ways Tom and I were opposites: 5 feet 6 inches versus 6 feet 5 inches, liberal (very liberal) versus conservative, constructivist (more accurate to say a misunderstood critical pragmatist) versus positivist, shaped by the 60’s versus shaped by the 80’s, and a seasoned professional skeptical of fundamental tenants of special education versus a novice apprentice aspiring to enter the profession.

As the semester progressed it became increasingly apparent to me that Tom did not ascribe to the merits of differential diagnosis in special education or the concept of a “continuum” of special education placements and services based on students’ identified needs, which was the very thing I was preparing to do as a school psychologist. I listened intently to Tom’s lectures which I would like to say was because I was uniquely open to learning from others holding views disparate to my own, but that was not the case. Rather, I listened intently to his critique of special education policy and practice so that I could poke holes in it.

Not too long after assuming my duties as a school psychologist I found myself questioning the merits of the psycho-educational battery of tests I was administering to children in terms of their objectivity and usefulness. I attended hundreds of “pre-assessment” meetings during which time teachers and principals spent more time trying to convince me to test children for special education eligibility rather than discussing interventions that might assist children in the classroom. I began to view my job within the context of a false choice: Either find a way to “help” the struggling student with a special education placement, or allow the child to continue to struggle in the regular classroom. I saw myself and my colleagues as being trapped in a failing system that, despite our best intentions, was not fully meeting the needs of many students and, in some cases, doing a disservice.

Looking back, Tom’s 1991 critique of special education, “The special education paradox: Equity as the way to excellence,” published in the Harvard Educational Review, was probably the turning point for me. I began to see how his critique of special education provided a framework that explained what I was experiencing as a practitioner.

Author

• David Egnor, United States Department of Education