It is so nice to be able to come to this conference! For many years now, my district has been promoting a change in culture. Part of the change in culture is the adoption of PLC or Professional Learning Communities ideals. The idea is to get teachers, students and community to slowly change the way they view public schools and education. Many of the general education teachers have been sent on conferences over the past 12 years of my tenure, but it seems now that Special Education teachers are also being considered. I for one am very happy for the opportunity to collaborate, learn and bring back new research and ideas to my district. It gives me hope in my profession as a scholar and in the reality of a professional learning community.
The historical, conventional ideas of education are based on Henry Ford type of learning, which emphasized a factory line type of approach. Students were expected to memorize facts and figures to prepare themselves for a professional career.
However, this universal type of learning is no longer efficient or effective (was it ever?). There is simply too much information to memorize and with the advent of technology, there are new discoveries every day. Students today have access to more information now than at any other time historically. The problems of tomorrow will require solutions that do not exist today, hence students of today need trouble shooting skills that allow them to think and act like scholars. Students need to be able to absorb new information and maintain critical thinking skills, not memorized facts that will probably change and be antiquated in six months.
The old paradigm of teachers expecting students to "sink or swim" is also supposed to be changing. It used to be (still is in some classrooms) the idea that the teacher sets the bar and the students strive to meet the expectations of the curriculum or fail the class. Memorization of a bunch of terms and ideas was assessed and then quickly forgotten. However, in the real world people don't learn like that. Individuals are driven to learn based upon their self motivations, which differ from person to person. What matters to us and how we experience life is what we remember and learn along the way.
The new (old) paradigm is one that is more student centered. Historically, this is how education began in the United States and other places. Children were raised at home and learned at home. Learning was individualized. It was only until the United States began to grow with immigrant populations that the ideal of a universal education was considered as a means to create a shared national identity. A public school system also helped to address the growing concerns over child labor and provided parents with the ability to work full time while their children were in school. Equality is another ideal that was introduced into the public school system. The idea that not all areas in the country have the same resources and students in some areas don't have the same quality of education. Hence the need to provide federal and state support to try and help schools, groups and districts that were impacted and clearly not capable of providing an appropriate educational experience for their students (this ideal has yet to be realized, even after years of funding approaches. It is call the Mathew effect, "the rich get richer and the poor continue to be poor." People of means will always have access to more resources than those without, hence equality is never achievable).
But what about students that have disabilities? Historically, any student with a learning disability was excluded from public education. The care and education of students with disabilities was considered the responsibility of the "institutions" or families, not of the public school system. Parents and families were expected to take care of their children with disabilities with no help from the government or state. Families that with children with disabilities did the best they could, but were challenged in caring for individuals could bankrupt them. It wasn't too long ago that having children with a disability was stigmatizing and many parents would send their children off to institutions to be cared for, once they became available. However, here again mistakes were made. Individuals were warehoused and mistreated. The segregation of individuals with disabilities was a dark spot in our national history. With the civil rights movement, more parents began to advocate for change and inclusion. The right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (Along with some other laws and court rulings like: IDEA and Brown vs. Board of Education) came into being. However, society still struggles with the question of inclusion of students with disabilities and to what extent? Students that attend school without disabilities also have a right to an education. Many general education teachers will try to include students that are different, but if there is too much of a disturbance to the academic environment, other placements are generally found, only because the setting is not "appropriate" or conducive to the needs of the student and the general class. Hence the debate about inclusion and "LRE" or least restrictive environment, which each student with a disability has the right to.
Today, I attended a lecture on research that wanted to know what research existed on the academic achievement of students that were included in general educational settings. The researchers found out that there were only eight studies done on this question and that the findings were inconclusive. Most of the studies done on inclusion are on developing life skills not on improving academic achievement in students with moderate/severe disabilities. In the 1980's, a movement to "mainstream" took off that encouraged districts to do away with isolated "special day programs" with the promise of improving socialization and other skills of students with disabilities (oh yeah, and reducing the costs to districts in the expense for operation of separate programs). However, this turned out to be a myth. Students that require services are still going to require services and the challenges still exist in including each student with an Individualized Educational Plan still existed.
This makes sense and reflects my own experiences. The challenges are that most public schools operate from an idealistic perspective rather than a pragmatic one. Ideals can't always be reached, but studies exist that if you set "rigorous" goals for individuals, more will rise to the occasion. The problem with this approach is that others will fail (hence "sink or swim"); an environment/ culture of winners and losers is created. In the case of students and their families with disabilities a school system that has the sole objective to graduate every student to go to college, they are left feeling isolated, excluded and left on the sidelines.
In a recent staff meeting, an administrator told the story of how she responded to a parent that approached her and told her "Winning isn't everything!" The administrator responded, "WINNING IS THE ONLY THING!"
I found a plaque that I think is more pragmatic, which says, "Winning isn't everything....trying to win is....".
I like this because it is more inclusive and functional. Students and their families with disabilities can be included in this expectation and ideal. Everyday they are alive is an attempt to improve and just survive. The act of being human is just this.....surviving and for individuals with disabilities that can be a huge achievement! I have known some students that weren't expected to live past their 18th birthday, yet they still survive by taking one day at a time.
Inclusion is not a simple issue to resolve. There are many considerations. Most general education teachers and administrators, I've met don't get it (the outcome) and lack the training to create a successful inclusion program (success meaning quality of life post academically). Each student with a disability presents a unique challenge and requires close collaboration between the general and special education teachers. Environment, differentiation and practice all make a difference, but it takes a lot of work, time and a shift in paradigm.
One reality I've come to accept after this convention is that many of the lectures and focuses of individuals in special education is on "moderate" disabilities. I went to one lecture that stated the word "all" in the title. When I asked if this included students with severe disabilities, I received a statistical response: "60% of students with disabilities will spend 80% of their time in general education classes". The implication was that the government and most administrators are focused on the needs and improvement of those special education students they can help to improve academically, the other 40% simply will not, due to their medical conditions, or severity, be able to achieve academically to the point the system sets. The implication of this realization is that the school system is not perfect and potentially continues to isolate and segregate the students and families that do not fit the mandates of the government. It is almost like admitting that some people are different, or coming up with an alternative program is not in the best interests of the majority of students, because it would go against the concept of "raising the bar" and getting students to have more "rigor".
My concern is with the 40% of students with disabilities that are in programs that continue to stress them out, contribute to no change in their outcomes and contribute to a negative learning experience for them, there parents and the system. Educational programs should formally adopt an understanding and acceptance that there are two systems that exist in our public schools. One system is of "rigor" that sets bars and expectations for "all" students that are capable of working in this system to show improvement and participate. The second system that exists in public schools is for the population of students with severe needs that won't be going to college and will most likely require assistive services when they age out. This system is more flexible and has an adjustable bar that is student centered (IEP). Teachers go to where the student is and works from there, with the ideal that meaningful learning can take place for everyone, regardless of their disabilities. The outcome we all strive for is to graduate individuals that will have better outcomes as a result of their experiences in the public educational system.
The final outcome should be the focus of school. General education students have the mandate to go to college, so there are lots of resources and programs to support them to that end. If students fail this there are vocational programs or employment they can seek out. Students with profound disabilities, in my experience, tend to go to group homes or be cared for. What is the purpose of academic achievement for such individuals? The majority of researcher and resources is all about improving academic achievement. Not all individuals will write, read or understand to the level that others do. Figuring out what they can do should be the priority, but of course schools would need to accept this.
Aside from socialization and life skills (listening to directions, being patient, interacting, communicating, acting appropriately, etc.), the students with disabilities and their teachers are working on documenting, skills and correcting behavioral challenges that will allow them to qualify for post-academic programs. Many of these programs will not accept individuals that can't follow directions, act inappropriately or require a lot of supervision. Parent's of such children are faced with decisions on how to advocate for their adult children after they have graduated the public school system of "entitlement".
The question of "inclusion" does not go away after individuals leave school. I was hopeful when I attended some presentations on the programs that are working on having transition programs in college settings for students with special needs, or are working on the outcomes of students that don't succeed to meet the expectations of the public school system.
One has only to visit a nearby city to see how many of the homeless people with disabilities end up. There is a financial and social cost to all of us when society refuses to deal with the reality of diversity. We can do better and improve our system of helping individuals become productive members of society, but it will first require a change in paradigm. It isn't about "leaving children behind", it is about meeting the needs of the individuals that require support that an idealistic system can't accept.
