This paper examines how educational practices have distorted the intentions of legislation designed to safeguard the needs of special education students. It looks at the history of special education in terms of three paradigms: (1) functionalism (which organizes social issues for the purpose of prediction and control and is based on the scientific method); (2) interpretivism (which emphasizes the emerging social process and views issues as subjective and socially created by people's perceptions); and critical theory (which combines radical humanism and radical structuralism to emphasize ways that ideological structures affect human thought and action and invite radical change). The paper uses case studies of two special needs students to illustrate the need for special educators to collaboratively integrate all three paradigms in their use of special education practices. An analysis of the case studies examines quantification for placement, one-way communication, and categorical placements. Justification for several current practices and recommended alternatives for others are provided. (Contains 30 references.) (DB)