You'll notice I said "disabilities," not "special needs." Gosh I hate the term special needs. All of our children are special and they all have special needs. Sometimes I get so tired of being politically correct because I can't say what I really intend to say using the words I'm supposed to use.
Anyways, here are some more of my thoughts on this topic. This was adapted from a listserve discussion.
First I should recognize that if a child has special needs but can be successful in the gen ed setting, be it for academics or parties or sports of whatever, great! That is fabulous. For those kids, go for it!
I also want to recognize that I think we can all agree that our kids should not have to be ashamed of their disability, nor have to miss out or go home instead of participating in something.
But we need to recognize that that is not the case for all children. Generalizations from one child to another simply cannot be made, each child is an individual. It would be ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in the gen ed setting that they should be in an alternate setting, but it’s equally ludicrous to tell a parent of a child who is successful in an alternate setting – and not successful in the gen ed setting – that they should be in the gen ed setting anyways. One size does not fit all.
I agree that separate is not and never can be equal. However for my son I would not expect separate to be equal, that is the whole point. If it were the same, the accomodation would not be needed in the first place. The whole reason he needs separate is because he needs something that’s different, inherently unequal if you will.
If we eliminate separate but equal (to borrow the term) and require that the special ed kids be able to participate in the gen ed class and accept no alternative accommodation, then what really happens is that those kids who can’t do it, for whatever reason, wind up getting NOTHING. For example, the parent who said that her daughter was supposed to go to the party in the gen ed class but that it was overstimulating for her, so the option was to sign her out of school early and go home. I fail to see how “nothing” is better than a separate accommodation. A big example of this is the special needs storytime we talked about a few months back. While some see the alternative to be regular storytime, and for some kids that is the case, what really happens for kids like mine is that if no special storytime were available, he would be at home having no storytime at all. This is a giant step backwards, and most certainly not the intent of Inclusion.
Also, consider that if the typical activity is the goal, how are you going to get there? Perhaps if I can take my son to special parties, special sporting activities, special storytimes, etc, we can use that as an opportunity to practice appropriate behavior, and one day maybe we’ll be able to do the typical stuff. But if special is not permitted and we just stay home, how would he have the opportunity to practice? Consider the idea that the special activities can be used as a springboard to the mainstream activities. They’re just a step in the journey.
So in an effort to put the square peg in the round hole, sometimes, as with high-functioning kids or those without behavior or sensory issues, you can make it all work, and that’s wonderful. But in other cases, it becomes “not politically correct” to offer a alternative, what those kids end up getting is nothing. Without the “special” class party or the “special” storytime or the “special” sporting activity, kids like my son would not be somehow miraculously able to participate in the typical setting. He would be doing nothing. And on top if that, he would be making no progress towards ever being able to participate because he would not have a safe place to practice those skills.
For many people, Full Inclusion is a happy term because it conjures up images of their child merrily going about their daily activities and growing up side-by-side with their typical peers. And for many kids that’s a reality! That is so wonderful, and for those kids great strides have been made in the past decades. But for me, the idea of Full Inclusion cuts like a knife because what it boils down to is two choices – cope with the mainstream, or go home and hide. My son can’t cope with the mainstream in many, many instances, yet I should not have to keep him at home nor hide him away as if his disability is something to be ashamed of. That is most certainly not the intent of full inclusion. So, in order to include my son to the fullest extent possible, it’s just a fact that accommodations need to be made.
“Inclusion to the fullest extent possible” is a whole lot better than “Inclusion or go home and hide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment