Skrtic argues that many of the efforts to reform special education have failed largely because most of them have made cursory reforms that do not question this functionalist assumption. He considers such reform an example of naïve pragmatism in that it seeks to improve the organization without questioning the underlying assumptions behind the failing practices that are trying to be remedied.  In this article, Skrtic is instead engaging in what he calls critical pragmatism in that he is questioning some of the most fundamental assumptions surrounding the organization of traditional public schools in order to ultimately suggest reforms that will hopefully provide meaningful change within the field of special education and public education as a whole.

In particular, he is questioning four highly-debated assumptions on which the special education system within the United States is based.  The first is that mild disability, i.e. learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and mental retardation, is pathological.  In Skrtic’s view, this assumption is not valid because such diagnoses are highly reliant on subjective forms of measurement.  As you will learn later in the course, the results of an IQ test can be interpreted by school districts in various ways such that a student may have a right to receive special education services in one district but not another.  

The second assumption is that diagnosis is objective and useful.  Once again, Skrtic holds that this assumption is invalid because while diagnosis of disability might be considered objective, there is little evidence to suggest that receiving a diagnosis and special education services leads to a “direct” instructional benefit for most students.  

The third assumption is that special education is a rational system .  Skrtic asserts that contrary to what some opponents of REI believe, special education is not a rational system.  Although it can be argued that special education is rational in the sense that it gives children an entitlement to services, in order for a system to be considered rational, there must be a way to monitor progress and implement technical change within it.  

The fourth assumption is that progress is rational and technical in that it can be monitored over time and be a metric for purposeful reform.  According to Skrtic, there is little consensus within the field of special education as to whether progress within the system can be measured and used in such a way as to make meaningful change possible.