Paradigm Shift
A reflection on
the contributions of Marc Gold
and the implications
for improving services today
Charles J.
Durgin, MS
The Kennedy
Krieger Institute
Introduction
Kuhn (1970) used the term “paradigm shift” to describe periods in the history of a scientific field that results in a radical shift. It is when a major change or revolution takes place in ideas or methods. Without question, the work of Marc Gold significantly contributed to the paradigm shift occurring in special education in the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s. Marc was both an innovative pioneer and a moving force in the field. I believe, as do many others, that his work helped to transform how persons with severe disabilities were understood, treated, taught, and valued.
The goal of this article is to highlight some of his major
contributions and to describe how they have played a significant role in
improving the lives of people with severe disabilities. These contributions are
discussed within the context of the disability movement and the growth of the
field of special education (1960-1980). A variety of important service
principles and intervention techniques are discussed. This is followed by a
number of reflections as to how programs and service systems can be more
responsive to people with disabilities.
Although this article highlights the substantial contributions of
Marc Gold, it is important to stress the following points. Marc was one of many
talented, assertive, and courageous individuals who helped to advance the field
of special education. This includes
academics and researchers from many different fields of study, family members,
practitioners, advocates, and of course those individuals with special needs
who still teach and guide us to this day.
Consequently, this overview is being presented with the knowledge that
there are many people who have made unique and critically important
contributions to the field.
Marc Gold (1980) has
indicated that his educational philosophy is rooted in providing a deep respect
for all people, particularly those that have been negatively treated and
labeled by society. He reports learning these values from his parents. His father,
who managed a bicycle and key shop in the poverty-stricken Hispanic barrio of
By the time he was teaching students labeled “retarded” in the Los Angeles City School System he had already developed a solid belief system as well as the drive to give his students the best possible education. He viewed education as a critical pathway to helping these individuals advance their circumstance (e.g., to becoming respected individuals deserving of humane treatment and fair opportunities). He also felt that the role of education and vocational training was to give people with disabilities the best possible opportunities for a productive and satisfying life. To accomplish these ends, his vision was to design curricula and instructional methodologies that taught skills which were valued by society. At this relatively young age, Marc already recognized the interconnections between learning, opportunity, systems failures, service gaps, negative biases (professional), and social prejudices. This started and fueled a fire inside of him that helped to drive the next steps of his career.
Not long after becoming a special education teacher, his passion
to serve, ability to teach, creativity, innovative thinking, and intellectual
talents were recognized by a state education supervisor named Dr. Robert
Henderson. Soon thereafter Dr. Henderson joined the faculty at
Before
Dr. Gold’s specific contributions are discussed, the historical context of when
his work was being formulated and implemented will be presented. Outlined below
in Table 1 is a timeline of a number of major disability and human rights
events that occurred between 1960 and 1980. In order to place his work into
context, two of Dr. Gold’s (1976, 1980) most significant contributions to the
field of special education have been incorporated--the filming of Try Another Way and
the publication of Did I say that?
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the release of Try Another Way is frequently listed as a key historical event in
the field of special education and the disability movement by professionals,
advocates, parents, and organizations.
1962
Ed Roberts, who had acquired
polio as a teenager, was finally admitted to the
1963 President Kennedy
signs legislation to form a network of Mental Retardation Research Centers (to
study causes and needs).
1963 The term “Learning
Disability” is first used by Dr. Samuel A. Kirk while speaking to a parents
group. Dr. Kirk, who was head of the Institute for Research on Exceptional
Children (IREC) at the
1964 The Civil Rights Act
is passed outlawing discrimination based on race. This will later become a
model for defining the rights of people with disabilities.
1966
Christmas in Purgatory is
published by Burton Blatt and Fred Kaplan. This book documented the appalling
conditions of institutions housing persons with disabilities.
1970’s (De-institutionalization
movement; parent advocacy, court orders, & new laws)
1971 Wyatt v. Stickney –
The Court recognized for the first time that persons in institutions are
citizens who have Constitutional rights to treatment and appropriate care.
1972 Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Children v.
1972 Television expose on
1972 Publication
of The Principles of Normalization by Wolf
Wolfensberger.
1973 The Rehabilitation Act
(Section 504) passes, prohibiting any program from receiving federal funds when
discriminating against persons with disabilities.
1974 The
Education of Handicapped Children Act (EHCA) was passed (P.L. 93-380).
1976 Try Another Way
training film by Dr. Marc Gold is completed and distributed.
1975 P.L. 94-142
establishes the right for all children who have handicapping conditions to
receive an education in an integrated setting.
1977 ARC v.
1980 Publication
of “Did I say that?” By Dr. Marc Gold
Philosophy, methods, and
applications
A primary emphasis of Dr. Gold’s work was to develop training methodologies and materials for people with severe disabilities to perform marketable tasks. His legacy is that of working with individuals with severe disabilities who had been given no genuine opportunities to advance their condition and demonstrate how they can learn. Dr. Gold would routinely teach individuals with IQ’s tested at below 50, and demonstrate a positive learning curve on multi-step tasks after only a few training sessions. This was revolutionary because the beliefs of the day were that anyone with an IQ below 50 was not worth teaching because they were not believed to be capable of learning. In an excellent overview of his work, Perske (1987) quotes Dr. Gold as saying, “The time has come to train people, not constantly test them, then walk away, leaving them with just a bunch of ugly numbers” (p. vii). Unfortunately, social conventions and professional practice at this time was to institutionalize the young and old who fit this profile of “mental deficiency.” Meyer (1991) reinforces this point about this era stating that “a label signifying a severe disability inevitability led to institutionalization and custodial care” (p. 634).
Beyond vocational training, Dr. Gold demonstrated through his
research how the principles he developed apply to teaching many different types
of skills ranging from self-help tasks to the activities of daily living. His
teaching approaches worked with persons with mental retardation, and with a
variety of other disabling conditions such as being deaf/blind, having autism,
or other forms of moderate to severe disabilities.
Dr. Gold’s work also showed us how we could become better teachers
and significantly increase our professional effectiveness. As a profession we
needed to change our beliefs, philosophy of instruction, as well as our
teaching methodologies, he insisted. In addition to advocating for ideological
and procedural changes, he stressed the importance of introducing content and
curricula that would be of value to the students (personally, socially, and
materially).
There was another significant barrier, beyond the formidable
forces of tradition and professional skepticism, which Dr. Gold needed to
overcome. It was convincing others that people other than himself could
implement his approaches. His effectiveness both inspired and intimidated
others. For example, it was commonplace for him to consult with state training
schools and institutions. He would often start by “walking in cold” if you
will, ask to meet the most difficult and challenging student or resident, and
invite them to work. Dr. Gold would proceed in front of the audience with his
trainee in a calm, composed, reassuring, and systematic manner. Early on people
were so taken by his intensity, precision, and results that many felt that only
he (or someone else in his stratosphere) could achieve similar outcomes. To
dispel this perception, which he understood was critical to advancing the field
on a large scale, he conducted hundreds of training
sessions that taught staff and family members to use his approach.
Interestingly, if you carefully watch his training film Try Another Way, you can see what appears
to be a deliberate effort to dispel any notion that his teaching technologies
are difficult to learn and implement. Dr. Gold was also known for hiring people
with severe disabilities so that they could participate in the staff
development workshops. He paid them to participate in the training of the
professionals who were responsible for providing educational and habilitation
services.
Ultimately, Dr. Gold left academia to devote more time to his
training and consulting business, which was designed to further disseminate his
approach. His work was in such demand that he could no longer remain a
professor. At this point some of his largest contracts were being administered
and/or supported by leading disability advocates who by this time had moved
into high positions of formal authority or influence within various
institutions and agencies. One of the most notable was a contract for $800,000.
executed under the leadership of Ed Roberts, who had
become the head of the California Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. Ed
Roberts attaining this position was a remarkable turn of events, in that he had
been rejected by the agency years earlier when a counselor told him that he was
not employable due to the severity of his disability. Ed did have a severe
disability stemming from acquiring polio as a teenager, but this did not in any
manner limit his drive, talent, or accomplishments. In many ways there is no
higher form of praise than to be hired by individuals who are the most able to
judge what services will offer the most value.
Key Contributions
To provide a concise overview of his work, the six guiding intervention principles that Dr. Gold frequently discussed will be outlined. A brief overview of four other key concepts that re-occur in his research will follow. Some of these concepts overlap, however, this material is included because it reinforces the ideological and practical aspects of his work. Although these concepts are widely understood and accepted today in civilized societies that have resources devoted to people with disabilities, it is important to remember that many of these principles were just being formulated, conceptualized, and applied early on in Dr. Gold’s career.
The six philosophical beliefs which set the foundation for all of
his work, include the following principles and
concepts (Gold, 1980):
1) One can best serve people with severe handicaps by training
them to do marketable tasks.
2) Persons labeled retarded respond best to a learning situation
based on respect of their human worth and capabilities.
3) Those labeled handicapped have the breadth and depth of
capabilities to demonstrate competence given training appropriate to their
needs.
4) A lack of learning in any particular situation should first be
interpreted as a result of inappropriate or insufficient use of teaching
strategies, rather than inability on the part of the learner.
5) To this point in its development, testing is, at best, limiting to the person labeled mentally retarded.
6) Labeling is both unfair and counterproductive.
Interestingly, many organizations that serve people with
disabilities, both in the
Maintaining a Balanced
Relationship
– Refers to the absolute need for the learner-trainer relationship to be based
on mutual respect, thereby recognizing the need for both parties to be able to change and adapt. Both individuals must
adjust to each other with respect to the content of the task and the quality of
their relationship.
Power (Instructional) – Refers to the amount of
intervention and direction required by teachers to help the student reach
criterion. This concept shifts the burden of responsibility for learning and
designing instructional tasks to be on the instructor. In other words, it’s not
the learner inadequacies but the teachers need to adjust content and methods if
one is to achieve results.
The Competence-Deviance
Hypothesis –
Building upon and re-shaping the idiosyncrasy-credits theory of Hollander
(1958, 1960), Dr. Gold formulated the competence-deviance hypothesis and
applied it to persons with severe disabilities. The premise is that the more
competent an individual is, the more deviance will be
tolerated in him or her by others. This has two significant implications.
First, people with disabilities who differ in appearance, behavior, and/or
skill level are at risk of being rejected and may well face a variety of social
prejudices and economic disadvantages. Second, and because of the first point,
it is particularly important for training programs to enhance the competence of
persons with disabilities in order to increase society’s tolerance of their
differences and to give them greater opportunities to live successfully within
the community. These sociological concerns helped to shape Dr. Gold’s
conviction to create curricula content in vocational training programs that would
give persons with disabilities skills that are needed in the workplace.
On Intelligence and Ability – Dr. Gold often stressed
that there is a difference between intelligence as assessed by IQ tests and
trained ability. One does not need to have high intelligence to be trained to
perform important tasks. Some tasks require a high degree of intelligence to
complete, but other tasks require quality training and a minimum of
intelligence to perform. Thus, the programming and instructional challenge is to
find valuable tasks that can be learned when effective teaching is provided.
Also, Dr. Gold put the programming emphasis on breaking tasks down into very
small teachable components through task analysis (as opposed to many
professionals who stressed administering reinforcement for efforts on tasks
that were too complex, boring, and/or meaningless).
There
is another aspect of Dr. Gold’s work that merits attention. This involves his
attempt to get the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) to change
the definition of mental retardation. This was a bold effort to redefine the
full meaning of what “mental retardation” meant to the person and to society
(professional and non-professional). In short, Dr. Gold took the AAMD seven
point definition and, on a point-by-point basis, made revisions (and
reversals). In fact, he reversed the AAMD emphasis on intellectual deficits and
adaptive behavioral limitations, and converted each of the seven points to
reflect potential contingent on support, systematic training, understanding,
and acceptance.
In many ways, this was a provocative stance that challenged the
members of a leading professional society to alter their view of mental
retardation, and in so doing, challenged their viewpoints, roles, and associated
responsibilities. He took the spotlight
off the limitations that people with mental retardation were believed to have,
and replaced it with a mirror for the professional community. This definition
was created to help all of us reexamine our professional beliefs and practices
more critically. Dr. Gold was advocating for more of a sociological view of
mental retardation that stressed the need for effective training to improve
skills and opportunities. In so doing he encouraged others to change their approaches
to diagnosis and to modify their views of how treatment programs should
operate. His own words can best convey the practical reasoning and deep moral
purpose behind this initiative, which he undertook in the mid-1970’s.
Consequently, the reader is strongly encouraged to access the original material
for more details (Gold, 1980).
Personal and professional commentary
Different
people remember Dr. Gold in different ways. People with
disabilities found him non-threatening and encouraging. For these individuals
there was security, purpose, opportunity, and productivity associated with
their contact with him. Family members found him to offer more than hope. He
offered direction, conviction, honesty, time to experiment and explore, persistence to attain results, visions for change,
as well as support. To his credit, the art and science of his work
predominantly took place in the trenches, not in the lab or at a desk or in a
lecture center. Although it did not always bring him positive regard by all, Dr.
Gold was also an outspoken advocate who was quick to challenge conventions that
imposed restrictions on those who were different. In many ways his leadership
helped “open the door” for others to question commonly held beliefs as well as
service system practices that limited human potential and violated human
rights.
The professional community also saw
Dr. Gold in a variety of different ways. Most were supportive and impressed
with his work. For example, some credit him with being one of the first special
educators to introduce challenging teaching materials combined with highly
systematized instructional methodologies designed specifically for people with
severe disabilities. This was particularly true for vocational tasks, in that
prior to this many of these individuals were not really expected to learn any
significant vocational skills. Best practice had not yet been well conceived,
and too often service quality had more to do with being in a “happy home” with
“good meals” provided. Dr. Gold’s ability to use systematic teaching
technologies to instruct people with severe learning problems also set a new
standard. He was able to design precise instructional systems that brought
these individuals to criterion on complex tasks quickly and with relatively few
errors. Additionally, Dr. Gold’s focus on person-centered instruction with
greater professional responsibility helped to alter the way in which the
capabilities of people with disabilities were conceptualized, how service
programs were being designed, and how professionals were trained.
Professionals were also impressed by Dr. Gold’s ability to combine
a highly sophisticated yet practical research orientation with a strong
ideological belief system. He was able to perform scholarly work that won the
respect of academics while at the same time he was leading others on the
frontline with heart. He was an unusually charismatic person among an already
impressive group of social visionaries and committed human service
professionals. Dr. Gold’s level of intensity, data driven methods, spontaneous
demonstrations with the most challenging students, willingness to take risks,
and passion to institute reforms exposed our profession to something
meaningful, provocative, and exciting. Those who heard him lecture and saw him
teach were aware that they were experiencing something profound and that they
would never see things quite the same again. Paradigms were shifting. Optimism
for a brighter future was growing.
An additional quality that is important to discuss is Dr. Gold’s
ability to capsulize problems and
identify strategies by using simple phrases. He was a master at creating “sound
bites” (as they are known today). Examples include:
·
Train don’t test
·
Don’t spend time assessing competence, spend time teaching competence
·
Labels are “hanging tools” that make sure individuals function at
the same level.
·
(People with disabilities have talent and are) surplus members of
the work force who are immediately available
·
Try another way (which is
an information cue prompting the learner to identify alternative approaches for
performing the task)
These
types of statements provided staff with clear ideas on how best to approach
their work. His choice of words
immediately elevated the stature of people with severe disabilities and at the
same time increased our responsibility to see that their needs and rights were
recognized and addressed. This was
particularly important in that these individuals were highly vulnerable to the
deficit-oriented thinking, the reductive testing-diagnostic methods, as well as
the harsh placement practices of the day. As referenced earlier, almost all
persons with severe disabilities and behavioral problems were being subjected
to prognostications that had a powerful impact on shaping their future without
their consent. Additionally, most were being placed and/or institutionalized
without the benefit of first receiving quality training opportunities to more
carefully assess abilities, interests, and resources. In many ways, while
confronting these “high stakes” issues and re-conceptualizing interventions,
Dr. Gold and his contemporaries were developing a new language which re-defined
human potential and future possibilities. This in turn altered how people
thought and acted, and in time dramatically altered how people with severe
disabilities were viewed, protected, treated, and educated.
Dr. Gold did face some criticism and disbelief early in his
career. However, his films demonstrating his remarkable success left very
little to criticize (i.e., “seeing is believing”). His
precise empirical studies also served to answer most of his early critics.
However, his perceptive yet sharp criticisms of the various attitudinal,
professional, and systems barriers to effective and humane treatment did
initially offend others. Dr. Gold himself acknowledged that early in his career
some of his critical and undiplomatic comments were insensitive and too
negative. He apparently was given some feedback to this end, which led him to
be more careful when stating his opinions. All things considered we are
fortunate that he did not hold back altogether.
Although the quality
of Dr. Gold’s contributions have been discussed at length, the scale of
his impact should not be overlooked. Through his efforts and that of his consulting
team in the State of
According to his close friend and associate Robert Perske (1987),
Dr. Gold became quite ill in the summer of 1982. He assembled his staff in his
home to review the direction of the Try Another Way system. After a critical review of the approach
and considering other advances in the field, a number of significant
modifications and refinements were suggested by the team and ultimately
supported by Dr. Gold (Callahan, 1987). This included changes in emphasis such
as: pushing for integration as being
more important than skill acquisition in training sessions, simplifying and
individualizing the process of writing a task analysis, preparing employees at
the job site to provide training and support (to decrease the dependency on
professional staff), and utilizing employer training resources and approaches
where appropriate. These changes were directly influenced by the innovative
approaches championed by Lou Brown and colleagues (1976), who strongly
advocated for vocational training to take place in work environments in the
real world. Thus, training out of context was being de-emphasized for work
related skills. Ultimately, these turning points in the field led to the
development of new and progressive models of vocational training and resulted
in greater levels of community participation for persons with severe
disabilities (Inge, Barcus, Brooke, & Everson, 1995).
A few months after the meeting with his staff, and all too early
in his life and career, Dr. Marc Gold died of complications associated with
Hodgkin’s disease. Although he has passed, the quality of his person and that
of his work has not. His work still influences and shapes both the ideological
and instructional aspects of many service programs throughout the world. The
Marc Gold & Associates company continues to teach the modified and evolved
version of the Try Another
Way system, and it has now reached well over 300 agencies and 4,000
trainees (M. Callahan, personal communication,
Implications for Improving Service Quality
Often, when we look into the past we can see how far we have come, and if we are lucky, we can gain a valuable perspective on the evolution of our work as well as ourselves. Without question, reviewing the philosophical and technical aspects of Marc Gold’s many contributions reminds us that special education is built upon the values of advancing human rights and creating genuine opportunities for those who have a disability. His work also reminds us that success within the field goes beyond maintaining a humanistic ideology and service context. The essence of special education is also to provide quality instruction. This involves engaging all stakeholders in the dynamic (and often difficult) process of teaching and learning in order to achieve consumer-valued results. As Dr. Gold stressed 25 years ago, educational outcomes should be able to increase competence as well as opportunities for greater levels of self-sufficiency and higher levels of personal satisfaction.
Without question, this is high demand work. However, positive results can be accomplished through systematic programming, effective collaboration, prioritization, experimentation, and pragmatic systems change (Snell & Brown, 2000); in other words, quality teaching and effective leadership at all levels. Additionally, achieving the highest levels of professional effectiveness requires all staff to possess and maintain values that keep them open to new learning and flexible in the ways that they operate (Kaiser & McWhorter, 1990). This includes demonstrating the desire to listen carefully to the individual needs of each person and family served and to create individualized service plans that are built upon these perspectives (Durgin, 1993; Ruef & Turnbull, 2002). This commitment to self-determination needs to be a continual process given the many changes in development and interests that occur throughout a persons lifetime (Sands & Weymeyer, 1996).
Reflecting on Dr. Gold’s work and the vast array of knowledge available in the field today will likely make one wonder if we have truly learned all of these lessons; or perhaps more fairly and accurately, one would at least question if key service principles are being successfully applied across the board today. When we as advocates, practitioners, researchers, and/or consumers evaluate our special education classrooms and service programs it may be helpful to ask ourselves a number of questions along this line, such as:
1) Are service level staff and program leaders maintaining the strongly held belief that people with severe disabilities can truly learn important skills?
2) Do our IEP’s, instructional procedures, and program operations reflect these beliefs?
3) Do we believe that we have the ability to teach these individuals to achieve their full potential?
4) How deeply do we hold these convictions?
5) Does everyone understand the importance of this work?
6) Are we working in accordance with the most humanistic ideologies and best practice methodologies?
7) Are we providing a high level of service to all of those in great need?
In many ways the answers seem to be “yes and no” and “it depends.” After all, there is a lot of variability in service quality in the field as a whole. In a general sense, our laws, regulations, attitudes and knowledge about disability, philosophical orientations, and teaching methodologies have all made tremendous advances. Gains in these areas have been nothing short of remarkable. Without question, they have provided substantial life-enhancing benefits to many and have set standards of care that we should all strive to attain. However, it appears that the greatest areas of need in the field today have to do with applying what we know where it counts. That is to say, providing best practice instruction and support for each person with special needs each day that services are provided. Unfortunately, it seems as if our ideological growth and legislative initiatives have outpaced our service level gains. Our expertise has significantly advanced, but it hasn’t been consistently delivered on the front line. Many people with disabilities, particularly those in disadvantaged circumstances, are still missing out on effective instruction to an unacceptable degree.
If there is one message above all else of Dr. Gold’s work that still holds true today, it is to take action to ensure that all people with disabilities are appropriately challenged and that all teachers are fully prepared. As broad reform movements and constant change initiatives move forward it may be helpful to take a step back and refocus on what’s truly important (Fullan, 2001). The basics of quality instruction, effective teacher preparation, and creating responsive models of service are really the essentials. In our efforts to improve services and opportunities for people with disabilities we have to be careful not to overcomplicate this process. This can result in misdirecting our efforts and their resources while striving to address the unique needs of each individual.
As we meet these challenges together we will hopefully continue to build more systems of care and methods of instruction that both achieve results and inspire others. Only in this way will we be able to attract and retain the best staff. To make significant headway, it will be critical for professional trainers and other leaders to make their presence known in the service arena. Their expertise, personal qualities, and leadership skills are needed to provide guidance, support, encouragement, and the technical knowledge needed to improve service processes as well as program culture. As we make this happen there will be more room for new paradigm shifts, advances in service quality, and renewed hope for an even brighter future.
Brown, L., Nietupski., J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). The criterion of ultimate
functioning and public school services for severely handicapped children. In M. A.
Thomas
(Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me!
(pp. 2-15).
Exceptional Children.
Callahan, M. (1987). A technology
evolves: What happened when Try Another Way met the
real world? Manuscript from Marc Gold
& Associates,
Durgin, C. J. (1993). Preparing staff to provide quality rehabilitation services: Problems and
proposed solutions. In C. J. Durgin, N. D. Schmidt, & L.
J. Fryer (Eds.), Staff
development and clinical intervention in brain injury rehabilitation (pp. 3-21).
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading
in a culture of change.
Galloway, C., & LeCours, R. (1978). Try Another Way in
Perske (1987), and was originally
available at the Marc Gold & Associates office
located in
Gold, M. (1976). Try Another Way. Training film produced by Glenn Roberts.
Gold, M. (1980). “Did I say that?” Articles
and commentary on the Try Another Way
system.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and
idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological
Review,
65, 117-127.
Hollander, E. P. (1960). Competence and conformity in
the acceptance of influence. Journal
of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 61, 365-369.
Inge, K. J., Barcus, J. M., Brooke, B., & Everson, J. (1995). Supported
employment staff
training
manual (2nd ed.).
Rehabilitation
Research and
Kaiser, A. P., & McWhorter, C. M. (Eds.). (1990). Preparing personnel to work with persons
with severe
disabilities.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structures of scientific revolutions. Foundations
of the unity of
science (2nd
ed.).
Meyer,
L. H. (1991). Advocacy, research, and typical practices: A call for the
reduction of
discrepancies between what is and what ought to be, and how to get there. In Meyer, L.
H., Peck, C. A., & Brown, L. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people
with severe
Disabilities (pp. 629-649).
Perske,
R. (1987). The legacy of Marc Gold. In
C. S. Mcloughlin, J. B. Garner, & M.
Callahan (Eds.), Getting employed, staying employed: Job development and training for
persons with
severe handicaps (pp. vi-xii) .
Sands, D. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (Eds.). (1996). Self-determination across the life span:
Snell,
M. E. & Brown, F. (Eds.) (2000). Instruction of
students with severe disabilities (5th
ed.).
Ruef, M. B. & Turnbull, A. P. (2002). The perspectives of
individuals with cognitive
disabilities
and/or autism on their lives and their problem behavior. Research & Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 27,125-140.
I would like to thank the following individuals who shared their
time, perspectives, materials, and personal accounts with me: Michael Bender,
EdD, The Kennedy Krieger Institute; Michael Callahan, Marc Gold &
Associates; Nancy
Weiss, Executive Director of TASH; Robert Henderson, EdD,
Contact Information
The author can be reached by e-mail at durgin@kennedykrieger.org or by
calling (443) 923-7835.