Guest Editorial—Why Meaningful Outcomes?
The passage o f Public Law 94-142 in 1975 and its implementation in the following years were marked by a clear commitment to educate those children and youth who, prior to that time, had been virtually excluded from public education in America and elsewhere in the world. Children with labels such as autism, severe to profound mental retardation, multiple handicaps, and deaf-blindness were seldom regarded as "students" even within special education circles. In fact, the "educability" of these children was a widely debated topic, mainly by educators whose area of expertise did not encompass severe disabilities and who emphasized concern that limited resources would be utilized for children who would not benefit from those expenditures and at the expense of those with milder handicaps who would. Given the long-standing history o f custodial care at best and neglect verging on abuse at worst, those who advocated on behalf o f persons with severe disabilities could not point to irrefutable success stories during the 1970s that would convince others that all children would indeed benefit. Thus, we had to insist upon being given the opportunity to show what could be done, and in the meantime, special education for students with the most severe disabilities had to be a question o f values. W e would provide a free and appropriate education for these young people, not because of past demonstrations o f remarkable progress supported by empirical data, but because it was right and just to do so— and long overdue. For those who disagreed, this change in practices might sound a bit like "trust me." It has now been scarcely 15 years since individuals with the most severe disabilities began their odyssey into the public schools and the community, and this movement has grown far beyond what its advocates might have imagined. One could continue to maintain that being able to go to school, live, recreate, and work with one's families, friends, and the variety o f typical people who comprise the community is defensible on principle alone—that no demonstration o f empirical evidence should be needed to justify someone's right to be regarded as a member of society and given the support needed to make that right a reality as well. Yet, if the skeptics from the 1970s were to revisit the educability debates of 20 years ago with the results o f these intervening years, we might scarcely recognize the transformation. I recall a statement by a prominent special educator that public education funds would be wasted teaching a person with severe disabilities to move his or her arm a few inches. Because it was clear that this scholar was not discussing intramural sports programs for typical kids, but was rejecting expenditures to achieve a similar motor outcome for kids with cerebral palsy and severe dis-