Teacher Training for Special Education: Historical Evolution of Curriculum

By: Afsana Islam 

Teachers often take on the role of more than just an educator. They are put in positions that require overextension: to act as guardians and social workers to keep up as effective employees. Unfortunately, despite their pivotal roles, teachers often lack the training and support needed to better equip them as educators. These truths are only exacerbated for those intending to teach special education, as the curricula have unfortunately been predicated on isolation and corporal punishment. 

Justification for Segregation 

Historically, disability was interpreted through exclusionary and medical lenses, viewing disability as a biological inferiority and social burden. This was influenced by the precursors to nineteenth and twentieth-century eugenic theorists, Plato and Aristotle. Plato referenced the "rational human herd," and Aristotle argued against raising "deformed children" as they were, in his words, useless to the state [1]. This rhetoric was exemplified in the case of Victor, a young boy who was discovered in the wild of Aveyron, France. He drew the attention of doctors, including Philippe Pinel, who diagnosed him as "congenital [redacted]" and ruled out educational activities [2]. However, Jean Marc Gaspard Itard, Pinel's pupil, disagreed. He believed Victor's condition resulted from isolation, and started an educational intervention, arguing that human life is primarily social. This period introduced a degrading image of disabled people as the "wild" who could be educated, aiming to normalize abnormality through educational efforts [3].

In America, the Industrial Revolution introduced a concept of "normality" tied to productivity and efficiency, leading to further social exclusion and widespread institutionalization for those considered abnormal or deviant. This, coupled with America’s history of intervention and Christian charity, led to eugenics theorists like Herbert Spencer. His establishment of Social Darwinism framed disability and deviance as hereditary defects threatening social progress, legitimizing segregation, forced sterilization, and the exclusion of disabled individuals from education and public life. Social Darwinism and Racial Anthropology, a pseudo-science that sought to classify races by quality, provided an ideological and alleged scientific basis for racism and the concept of the "superior race" [4]. It was in 1883 when Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" to define the study of conditions producing superior men. He argued that heredity was the main factor, and aiming to encourage the reproduction of the "best" individuals [5]. 

Under Nazism, these ideas were translated into state policy through systematic sterilization and the “euthanasia” programs targeting people with disabilities, demonstrating how medicalized and productivity-based definitions of normality could lead to mass violence and genocide [6]. During the Fascist period in Italy, eugenic control led to drastic increases in patients treated in psychiatric hospitals and legislative measures to protect the "race" from imperfections [7]. The development of special education practices is in response to these extremes. 

Early Curricula

Those with disabilities were segregated due to the fear that conditions would spread. Wealthy families had the privilege to opt for private education, but for most, institutionalization was the feasible option. Samuel Gridley Howe’s work with “training schools” in 1840s Massachusetts profoundly shaped British approaches by framing disability as a socially caused moral disease rooted in parental vice. This asserted a moral duty to aid the “poor,” and introduced derogatory classifications at a time when distinctions lacked clear criteria and little emphasis had been placed on precise language for intellectual disability [8]. In Europe, physician Edouard Séguin argued that those with what we would now call developmental disabilities are a product of a failure of the will to apply themselves to learn. His therapy revolved around physical activities to stimulate the senses and engage the child in learning. Activities like gymnastics, music, and marching exercises taught rhythm and coordination, building with blocks and other manual activities taught dexterity [9]. Many of these parallel modern Montessori practices. However, this emphasis on physical activity turned to learning trade skills. Subsequently, the children were exploited for labor, such as in the case of the New York House of Refuge.

In 1866, Martin Duncan’s and William Millard’s training manual classified degrees of mental deficiency while acknowledging their fluid boundaries, arguing that education or environment could shift a child between categories and advocating the separation of children with disability from “perfect children” to prevent the spread of undesirable habits [10]. The 1870 Education Act in London expanded compulsory schooling, but led to overcrowded classrooms for inexperienced teachers, and introduced a system that prioritized exam performance- leading to children who struggled being labeled as intellectually deficient. Lacking awareness, educators often misattributed poverty, illness, and disability to innate delinquency, reinforcing class-based stigma and justifying the segregation of disabled children [11]. To this day, classrooms function under the same constraints, causing teachers and curriculum to fall short of the demands of students.

International Documents on Inclusion

International recognition of inclusion began with the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which mandated special care for those with disadvantages. Documents such as the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally [redacted] Persons (1971) began explicitly calling for the inclusion of disabled persons in common school contexts. The 1980s saw new struggles for civil rights and the development of the Social Model of Disability, advocated by sociologist Mike Oliver, which rejected the "individual model" and focused on societal failures rather than individual deficits. The World Health Organization (WHO) established the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDIH) in 1980, which, despite its limits, was the first tool to study the impact of health status on people.  The subsequent ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) adopted a bio-psychosocial perspective, defining disability as a "health condition in an unfavourable environment" and prioritizing the description of functions and abilities. The Jomtien Conference (1990) introduced the concept of "Education for All" into global development programs, aiming for universal primary education and improved quality for unassisted groups. Documents, such as the Salamanca Statement (1994) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), established inclusive education as a legal and ethical obligation, requiring schools to adapt to learners’ diverse needs [12]. 

The first federal legislative mandate in the United States requiring collaboration was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142), which mandated special educators and related service providers to work together on Individualized Education Plans (IEP). Subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA, including IDEA 2004, extended special education services and the theme of collaboration to preschool children, infants, and toddlers. Despite legislating collaboration, P.L. 94-142 inadvertently fostered separate cultures and roles within education, a status quo only addressed by the Regular Education Initiative (REI) in the 1980s, which promoted collaboration in general education settings [13]. As a result, special education curricula shifted from separate and simplified programs toward holistic, differentiated, and accessible learning pathways within mainstream classrooms. 

Contemporary Curricula 

In the 1970s, research, grounded in behaviorism, began to show that students with severe disabilities were capable of learning. This led to the development of teaching procedures focused on skills necessary for living in the community (institutional emancipation), such as communication, reducing problem behavior, functional reading, and leisure activities. As students with severe disabilities moved into neighborhood schools, the functional curricula that had facilitated their exit from institutions became a barrier for inclusion in general education classrooms. Special educators were unprepared to generalize their strategies to the school curriculum, and general educators were unprepared to teach functional skills alongside their typical classroom curricula [14].

Studies published between 2011 and 2021 examine how teachers make curriculum decisions for students with severe intellectual disabilities or profound and multiple learning difficulties (S/PMLD). The research highlights that classroom teachers are the primary decision-makers for this cohort, despite limited guidance and support. The review identifies four key roles teachers adopt in curriculum planning: teacher as guardian, educator, employee, and (non)academic. Teachers most commonly act as guardians, relying on personal ethics, intuition, and emotional connections with students to make decisions they believe are right, even when these conflict with policy or evidence-based practices. As educators, teachers prioritize student needs and demonstrate varying levels of confidence and self-efficacy, often working in isolation. The employee role reflects tensions between individualized decision-making and systemic or policy demands, with limited access to relevant professional learning. Finally, as (non)academics, teachers often view research and evidence-based practices as irrelevant or unsuitable for students with S/PMLD, leading to skepticism and underuse of research [15].

Challenges in Teacher Training and Curriculum

Problems such as limited funding and training gaps were recognized during the 1980s, leaving many educators unprepared to support diverse students. New teachers often lack knowledge of research-backed methods, behavior management, and assistive technology. In-service professional development is also insufficient, as available programs are short, outdated, and fail to equip teachers with the skills needed to create personalized learning plans, manage behavior, and effectively implement special education strategies. Training shortages make special education teaching more difficult, which causes teachers to exhaust themselves faster and react disparagingly to outbursts [16]. Additionally, teaching experience influenced perceptions of training effectiveness: as years of experience increased, teachers rated the value of their pre-service training less positively, possibly due to greater awareness of gaps between theory and real-world practice [17].

Conclusion

Quality teacher training is essential for effective special education, as many educators enter the field without sufficient preparation, despite the growing complexity of supporting students with disabilities. Researchers recommend regular and advanced training through pre-service and in-service programs, mentorship systems, learning partnerships, and collaborative models that integrate new research, technology, and interdisciplinary support. Policymakers and educational institutions should align training with special education laws, support curriculum development, and promote flexible online or hybrid models to ensure inclusive, high-quality education for all students [18]. K–12 schooling often discourages positive disability identity through a lack of disability representation in curricula, limited connection to disability communities, and the absence of disabled educators. Students described school environments as reinforcing ableist assumptions by focusing on accommodation and normalization rather than disability history, culture, and rights, leading many students to hide or reject their disability and feel disconnected from their identity until later in life [19]. Schools and educators can play a transformative role in affirming their identity as a valued form of diversity.

References 

[1]  Rossa, Carina. (2018). The History of Special Education. Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration. 23. 209-227. 10.1515/pepsi-2017-0011. 

[2] Ibid 

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Ray-Barruel, Gillian. (2012). The Legacy of Special Education in Victorian England, 390. 

[8] Ray-Barruel, Gillian. (2012). The Legacy of Special Education in Victorian England, 393-994. 

[9] Ray-Barruel, Gillian. (2012). The Legacy of Special Education in Victorian England, 391. 

[10] Ibid

[11] Ray-Barruel, Gillian. (2012). The Legacy of Special Education in Victorian England, 395.

[12] Rossa, Carina. (2018). The History of Special Education. Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration. 23. 222-223. 10.1515/pepsi-2017-0011. [12]Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Collaboration in Special Education: Its History, Evolution, and Critical Factors Necessary for Successful Implementation. US-China Education Review B, 3, 480-498.

[14] Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. (2006). Chapter 3: Learning in Inclusive Education Research: Re-mediating Theory and Methods With a Transformative Agenda. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 65-108. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X030001065

[15] Rendoth, T., Foggett, J., & Duncan, J. (2025). Curriculum Decision-Making for Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities or Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 72(8), 1554–1571. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2024.2378015

[16] Dr. Uzma Rafique , Shazia Aslam , Arshad Ali , Tanveer Fatima , Ahsan Mukhtar. (2024). Special Education For Children: Challenges And Approaches. Migration Letters, 21(S10), 1232–1247. Retrieved from https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/11661

[17] Walker, V. L., Douglas, K., Wang, C., & Li, Z. (2022). Special education teachers' perspectives of effective pre-service training practices in systematic instruction for students with extensive support needs. International journal of developmental disabilities, 70(4), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2110362

[18] Dr. Uzma Rafique , Shazia Aslam , Arshad Ali , Tanveer Fatima , Ahsan Mukhtar. (2024). Special Education For Children: Challenges And Approaches. Migration Letters, 21(S10), 1241. Retrieved from https://migrationletters.com/index.php/ml/article/view/11661

[19] Mueller, Carlyn. (2021). “I Didn’t Know People With Disabilities Could Grow Up to Be Adults”: Disability History, Curriculum, and Identity in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.