Tribute to a Towering Figure in Special Education: James M. Kauffman

Dr. James M. Kauffman, a towering figure in special education, passed away on 25 September 2024, at the age of eighty-three. For more than five decades, he advanced the education of students with disabilities through his scholarship, mentorship, and advocacy. His unwavering commitment to scientific rigor, evidence-based practices, and a deep compassion for learners with disabilities made him one of the most influential voices of his generation in the field of education.

Born 7 December 1940, in Hannibal, Missouri, Kauffman was raised in the Mennonite tradition, which shaped his lifelong commitment to social responsibility and nonviolence. Those values informed his focus on children with emotional and behavioral disorders—students too often misunderstood or neglected (Kauffman, 1996). After a B.S. from Goshen College (1962) and an M.Ed. from Washburn University (1966), he completed a Ph.D. in Special Education at the University of Kansas (1969) under the supervision of Richard J. Whelan. During this time, his hands-on work at the Southard School of the Menninger Clinic highlighted for him the transformative potential of specially designed educational interventions (Kauffman, 1996, 2025).

Joining the University of Virginia in 1970, Kauffman built an exceptional career in teaching, research, and leadership. In collaboration with Daniel P. Hallahan and other colleagues, he co-authored multiple editions of the widely used textbooks Exceptional Children (Kauffman et al., 2023) and Introduction to Learning Disabilities. He also coedited the Handbook of Special Education and, with Hallahan, Pullen, and Badar, authored Special Education: What It Is and Why We Need It (Kauffman et al., 2018). Collectively, these works grounded generations of special education teachers in scientific approaches to understanding and educating students with disabilities, and they remain cornerstones of the field.

He served as department chair (1977–1981), associate dean of research (1981–1984), and, in recognition of his contributions, held the Charles S. Robb Professorship until his retirement in 2003. His output is vast: more than 25 books, over 150 peer-reviewed articles, and editorial leadership for Remedial and Special Education and Behavioral Disorders and Education Sciences: Special and Inclusive Education. Landmark volumes—Characteristics of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders of Children and Youth (with Timothy J. Landrum; Kauffman & Landrum, 2017) and three editions of The Handbook of Special Education (with Hallahan and Paige C. (Pullen Hallahan et al., 2023))—became standard references in the field.

Kauffman served the profession through the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD). His honors include the CEC J.E. Wallace Wallin Special Education Lifetime Achievement Award, CCBD’s Outstanding Leadership Award, and the International Council for Exceptional Children’s Outstanding Achievement Award. The establishment of the annual Badar-Kauffman Conference at Kent State University honors his enduring influence on the field of special education, highlighting his role in advancing a culture of evidence-based practices and scientific thinking.

• Scientific Frame of Mind

What most distinguished Kauffman’s scholarship was its consistent orientation toward a scientific frame of mind. He treated special education as an applied science—akin to medicine or aviation—where evidence, not ideology or fashion, must guide practice. Toward a Science of Education: The Battle Between Rogue and Real Science (2011) crystallized this stance, arguing that disciplined scientific thinking is the proper foundation of educational decision-making. Earlier, in Education Deform (2002), he displayed his sharp wit and fearless critique of misguided policies, stating that too much of what is said about educational reform is nonsense that shortchanges students, parents, and taxpayers, and therefore deforms education rather than reforming it. In The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon (with Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005), he challenged placement dogmas that ignored individual instructional needs. His message was constant: sentiment and slogans cannot substitute for evidence-based interventions (Kauffman, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2011).

For Kauffman (2002, 2011), science was not just a set of methods or a corpus of ideas, but a mindset defined by evidential priority, testability, and self-correction. He often argued that science is “about reducing uncertainty”—not faultless, but a better bet than simplistic ideologies (Kauffman & Sasso, 2006; Kauffman, 2011). Kauffman (2011) distinguished this stance from scientism. He posited that science can tell us which reading programs raise fluency or which behavioral supports reduce disruption; it cannot, by itself, rank society’s moral and social priorities. Respecting this boundary preserves science’s credibility and clarifies how values properly guide the aims to which scientific findings are applied (Kauffman, 2011).

Kauffman (2011) warned against two threats to scientific integrity: rogue science and simplistic ideology. Rogue science adopts the trappings of research without the substance of replication, critique, or peer review. Kauffman (2011) pointed to the promotion of facilitated communication as a cautionary tale: appealing in its promise of empowerment yet shown by systematic studies to be invalid and misleading. Simplistic ideology, by contrast, elevates moral aspirations into rigid dogmas, pre-selecting acceptable conclusions and demanding that evidence conform (Kauffman, 2011; Anastasiou et al., 2024). He regarded the movement for full inclusion—interpreted as a universal mandate irrespective of individual need—as an instance of simplistic ideology overriding mixed evidence on placement, while deflecting attention from the more decisive variable: instructional quality (Hornby & Kauffman, 2023, 2024; Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005; Kauffman, 2011; Kauffman et al., 2017, 2022; Kauffman & Hornby, 2020, 2025).

For Kauffman (2011, 2025), defending science and pursuing social justice were inseparable. Public, testable knowledge levels the epistemic playing field, allowing anyone to inspect, criticize, and replicate claims. Students with disabilities deserve not rhetoric but interventions that work. Simplistic ideology and rogue science may comfort or persuade, but only a scientific mindset incorporates error-correction, ensuring that practice evolves in line with evidence. Anchoring values in reality—rather than substituting them for it—was, for him, both an epistemic and a moral imperative (Kauffman, 2011).

• Critical Rationality Applied

While Kauffman did not himself use these terms, he frequently emphasized rationality, and his policy critiques (Kauffman, 2002, 2003, 2010, 2011) were grounded in the tradition of critical or reflective rationality. Within this tradition, when doing science, claims must be anchored in evidence, remain continually open to empirical testing, and be regarded as provisional rather than absolute truths. They must be revised or abandoned when contradicted by data, embodying a spirit of fallibilism, self-correction, and resistance to dogma (Bunge, 1996, 2017; Kahneman, 2011; Popper, 1962, 1974/1992; Stanovich, 2011). This stance aligns with research on the reflective mind within the field of rationality, which emphasizes actively open-minded thinking, a readiness to question assumptions, and a willingness to revise beliefs (Kauffman, 2011).

Although Kauffman did not use the exact phrase “critical rationality,” he embodied it—in his own work and in his openness to critique (see Anastasiou et al., 2015; Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2019; Kauffman & Sasso, 2006). Kauffman (2002, 2010, 2011) cautioned against slogans masquerading as analysis. “All children are special” may uplift, but when turned into policy, it erases the rationale for special education and invites the absurdity that “all education should be special education.” Equally, calls for “elite education for everyone” deny real distributions of achievement (Kauffman, 2002, 2011). With regard to having high expectations, he warned against magical thinking: if education were simply a matter of setting high expectations, “pigs could fly.” The educator’s task is to set rational and achievable expectations for each learner (Kauffman, 2002, 2011).

• Instruction First

Kauffman (2002, 2010, 2011) argued that genuine educational reform both starts and culminates in instruction. He cautioned that too many initiatives become consumed by structural debates—such as testing regimes, accountability frameworks, or governance reforms—while neglecting the actual work of teaching. Such reforms, he argued, are “doomed to fail… unless instruction gets better” (Kauffman, 2011, p. 162). Instruction is the active ingredient of learning, the engine that drives schools forward. Without effective teaching, the system is like a car without fuel: outwardly intact but unable to move. Reform that treats teaching as secondary or assumes it will improve automatically under new structures is considered fundamentally misguided.

To illustrate this point, Kauffman (2011) often drew on analogies from aviation. Reform without improved teaching, he observed, is like a detailed flight plan without a trained pilot: no matter how precise the route, the plane will not fly. Similarly, accountability policies may prescribe standards and goals, but unless teachers are skilled in evidence-based methods, the system will stall. Instruction is not a background detail but the essential fuel that animates education. For Kauffman (2002, 2010, 2011), teaching had to be grounded in explicit, systematic, and data-driven practices that could be tested, replicated, and refined. In this way, reform could progress beyond rhetoric and begin to shape reality.

Within this framework, Kauffman (2011) highlighted special education as the most promising place to start. Unlike general education, special education has always been committed to providing individualized, specially designed instruction and systematic monitoring of progress. The very purpose of the field of special education is to devise strategies that succeed where general methods fail. Unlike many other areas of education that often rely on broad philosophies, special education is uniquely positioned to embody the principles of a scientific profession: interventions must be tailored to individual needs, tested against evidence, and refined through continual evaluation (Kauffman, 2011). He argued that if special education remains committed to this mission—resisting both ideological pressures and assimilation into general education—it could serve as a model for broader reform. By prioritizing instruction and demonstrating what evidence-based teaching looks like in practice, special education can lead the way toward a transformative, equitable, and effective education system (Hornby & Kauffman, 2021; Kauffman, 2011).

• A Lasting Legacy of Science, Truth, and Humanity

Beyond his scholarly achievements, Kauffman was a generous mentor who profoundly shaped the careers of students and colleagues alike. He modeled parrhesia—fearless truth-telling—delivered with wit, warmth, and humor. He insisted that arguments be explicit and evidence-based, while human interactions remain respectful and compassionate (Kauffman, 1996, 2011). He demonstrated how to disagree without disdain, how to request stronger evidence without belittling, and how to keep students—not egos—at the center of professional life. For many, he was not only a mentor but also a friend, one whose intellectual courage was inseparable from his personal kindness (see Kauffman, 1996).

Dr. James M. Kauffman leaves behind a legacy that is both intellectual and deeply human. He taught us to reduce uncertainty with evidence, to separate facts from social values without severing them, to revise our thinking when proven wrong, and to speak plainly even when it is unpopular. Honoring his legacy means recommitting ourselves to truth, reflective rationality, and principled practice—and to keeping instruction at the heart of educational reform. It really was an honor and privilege to work with him on publication projects. He was dynamic in driving things forward and generating different perspectives while welcoming input from colleagues, including those less senior than himself. He will be sorely missed by many people but has left us with a tremendous legacy to attempt to live up to.

Our Jimmy will be remembered not only for his wisdom and scholarship but also for the joy, humor, kindness, and humanity he brought into the lives of all who knew him.