Special Education for Learning: Professional Agency over the Desperate Search for a Target Group
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5282/breakingbarriers/7
Abstract
Special education for learning in Germany is marked by a persistent paradox. It is expected to define a specific target group while lacking coherent, valid, and equitable criteria for doing so. Diagnostic practices for identifying special educational needs in learning remain inconsistent, regionally variable, and strongly influenced by systemic and social factors rather than clearly identifiable individual characteristics. As a result, categorization is arbitrary, often stigmatizing, and primarily serves bureaucratic functions of resource allocation rather than educational improvement. This position paper argues that the continued search for a clearly delineated target group should be abandoned. Instead, special education for learning should be reoriented toward professional agency, defined as teachers’ capacity to design, implement, and evaluate effective support for students with learning difficulties of any kind. Drawing on international frameworks such as Response to Intervention and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, the paper advocates a systemic shift from eligibility-oriented diagnostics toward continuous progress monitoring, preventive intervention, and needs-oriented resource allocation. Support should be organized according to pedagogical measures at the individual, group, and school level rather than deficit-oriented labels. Such a reorientation requires embedding special education resources directly within schools and fundamentally reforming teacher education to emphasize research informed decision making, collaboration, and instructional competence. This approach positions special education as a driver of inclusive, preventive, and responsive practice rather than an administrator of categories.
Schlagwörter
special education for learning, inclusive education, systemic perspective, learning disabled, special educational needs (SEN)
Literaturhinweise
- Binet, A. (1912). Neue Gedanken über das Schulkind. Wunderlich.
- Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1912). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children. Courier.
- Bühler, P., & Hofmann, M. (2017). Education and psychopathologization 1870–1940. IJHE Bildungsgeschich-te – International Journal for the Historiography of Education, 7(2), 133–141
- Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. (1983). Improving the reliability of curriculum-based measures of aca-demic skills for psychoeducational decision making. Diagnostique, 8(3), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724778300800301
- Galeano Weber, E. M., Aissa, R., Moser, V., & Hasselhorn, M. (2025). Determining special educational needs in Germany: Current status and the coherence of the rationale of support recommendations. European Jour-nal of Special Needs Education, 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2025.2457258
- Gebhardt, M. (2024). Inklusiv- und sonderpädagogische Pädagogik im Schwerpunkt Lernen. Eine Einführung (Version 0.6). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/epub.110254
- Gebhardt, M., Schurig, M., Suggate, S., Scheer, D., & Capovilla, D. (2022). Social, systemic, individual-medical or cultural? Questionnaire on the concepts of disability among teacher education students. Frontiers in Education, 6, 701987. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.701987
- Haas, B., Brodesser, E., Aissa, R., Galeano Weber, E. M., Althaus, N., Rettschlag, M., Uhlemann, N., Landgraf, S., Moser, V., & Hasselhorn, M. (2025). Diagnostische Praxis zur Feststellung sonderpädagogischer Förder-bedarfe in ausgewählten Förderschwerpunkten. In K. Beck, R. Ferdigg, D. Katzenbach, J. Kett-Hauser, S. Laux, & M. Urban (Hrsg.), Förderbezogene Diagnostik in der inklusiven Bildung. Professionalisierung – Spezifische Unterstützungsangebote – Übergänge in die berufliche Bildung (Bd. 2, S. 25–41). Waxmann. https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830999614
- Koßmann, R. (2019). Schule und „Lernbehinderung“: wechselseitige Erschließungen. Klinkhardt.
- Koßmann, R. (2020). Der sonderpädagogische Förderbedarf im Lernen im Spiegel einer deutschlandweiten Län-dervergleichsstudie. Behindertenpädagogik, 59(1), 47–72.
- KMK. (2019). Inklusive Bildung von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Behinderung in Schulen. Kultusminister-konferenz. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2011/2011_10_20-Inklusive-Bildung.pdf
- Meijer, J. W. (1999). Finanzierung der sonderpädagogischen Förderung. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/financing-of-special-needseducation_Financing-DE.pdf
- Moser, V., & Dietze, T. (2015). Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Unterstützung: Bereitstellung von Ressourcen aus nationaler und internationaler Sicht. In P. Kuhl, P. Stanat, B. Lütje-Klose, C. Gresch, H.A. Pant, & M. Prenzel, M. (Eds.), Inklusion von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleistungserhebungen (pp. 75–99). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06604-8_3
- Netzwerk People First Deutschland e.V. (n.d.). Kämpf gegen den Begriff „geistig behindert“. https://www.menschzuerst.de/was-tun-wir/kaempf-gegen-den-begriff-geistig-behindert/
- Penney, C. G. (2018). Rethinking the concept of learning disability. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadi-enne, 59(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000128
- Prince, A. M., Yell, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): The US supreme court and special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(5), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217736867
- Sälzer, C., Gebhardt, M., Müller, K., & Pauly, E. (2015). Der Prozess der Feststellung sonderpädagogischen För-derbedarfs in Deutschland. In P. Kuhl, P. Stanat, B. Lütje-Klose, C. Gresch, H.A. Pant, & M. Prenzel, M. (Eds.), Inklusion von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit sonderpädagogischem Förderbedarf in Schulleis-tungserhebungen (pp. 129–152). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06604-8_5
- Thimm, W. (2006). Behinderung und Gesellschaft: Texte zur Entwicklung einer Soziologie der Behinderten. Winter.
- Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (2015). Research perspectives on multi-tiered system of support. Learning Disabil-ities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(1), 1–2.
- Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickmann, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900401
- Voß, S., & Blumenthal, Y. (2019). Impacts of the Response-to-Intervention approach on German elementary students. International Journal of Technology and Education, 8(1), 1347–1355.
- Walter, C., & Walter, P. (2004). Behinderung als Stigma. In A. Hinz & B. Schnell (Eds.), Schulische Integration Behinderter: Eine Einführung in die Bedingungen, Aufgaben und Perspektiven (pp. 29–47). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87370-5_3
- ¬Wolf, L. M., & Dietze, T. (2022). Ein Überblick über die Organisation der Feststellung von sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfen in Deutschland. In M. Gebhardt, D. Scheer, & M. Schurig (Eds.), Handbuch der sonderpä-dagogischen Diagnostik: Grundlagen und Konzepte der Statusdiagnostik, Prozessdiagnostik und Förder-planung (pp. 325–344). Universitätsbibliothek Regensburg. https://doi.org/10.5283/epub.53149
- World Health Organization. (1980). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps: A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41003
- World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42407
