Changing the Situation, Not the Person

Set someone up for success

How do you include a person with differences and challenges in a setting or situation that's not geared to people with differences and challenges?

All too often, the answer provided is either (1) create a separate setting or situation in which "those" people can be "comfortable" or (2) teach the people to handle a difficult setting or set of expectations.

All too rarely, there is consideration of the possibility that, with just a few minor changes, the setting and its expectations can be changed to accommodate people, rather than vice versa.  Even when those changes cost nothing except an hour, a few minutes, or even a few seconds -- and nothing more.

Just a few examples should get this idea across.

An adult with special needs -- who happens to have a wonderful singing voice -- would like to be included in a community chorus.  But all the chorus members read music -- a skill that is outside the abilities of the person with special needs.  The choral director can just say no, or suggest that the person join a "special" chorus.  Or he can spend an extra 45 seconds pushing the button on a recorder and record the music so that individual with special needs can learn it, not by reading, but by ear. 

A child with special needs wants to become a part of a swim team -- and is a terrific swimmer -- but has a very hard time processing spoken or shouted instructions.  The coach can just say no, or suggest that the person join a "special" team.  Or he can spend an extra few minutes before each meet explaining what will happen and providing a written list of instructions.

A teen with special needs would like to be confirmed in his church, but cannot sit still for more than a few minutes without needing to get up and move.  The clergy person can just say no, or suggest that the teen take part in a "special" confirmation.  Or he can spend an hour with the family and teen, modifying the service so that short breaks are built in.

None of these changes are difficult or complex.  None require an extra nickel.  None require more than an hour of extra time.  None require great concessions or sacrifices on the part of a "typical" community. 

Why are such changes, then, so rare?

Inclusion and the IDEA Versus High Stakes Testing

According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the IDEA), full inclusion in the general education classroom is the ideal for all children.  Regardless of their challenges.  Even if they make odd noises, pace around, or are unable to communicate verbally.  Even if their cognitive challenges make it impossible for them to read at anything close to grade level or produce schoolwork that can be compared in any way to their classmates'.

To achieve this goal, children with significant challenges of any kind must be taught according to his own needs, based on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

This could work!

In fact, it often DOES work in public schools for children ages 3-7 -- that is in preschool, kindergarten, and grades 1 and 2. 

That's largely because, in those grades, it's "ok" to differentiate instruction, teaching some kids with visual tools and others with verbal tools.  And it's ok to move around, do a little art, do a little music, do some reading and writing, go out to recess...  And it's ok to try a new approach to teaching or evaluation if a child's strengths lie less in the three R's and more in, say, expression through construction of models, drawings, or dance.

In the early years, no one loses out when the teacher offers a wide range of options for learning and self-expression.

Then grade 3 comes along, and it all changes.  For one reason.  High Stakes Testing.

Sure, the law is the same: inclusion remains the ideal.  And each child with special needs must be taught according to his own needs, based on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).  But now, the expectation is that everyone will learn the same things, in the same way, at the same time, so that they can take the same tests, at the same time, with increasingly higher scores.

If you notice a contradiction here, you are not alone.  It is literally impossible to provide every child with special needs with a customized, inclusive education while ALSO providing every child in the school with the same type of education leading to the same outcomes on the same tests.

At this point in their development, kids with special needs are now relegated to the back of the room with their aides, so that they can receive "appropriate" instruction that doesn't interfere with the general education race to High Stakes achievement.  Or, if they're academically capable, they're placed in the very front of the room and expected to attend and understand -- even when the general education teacher is not teaching to their needs.

Meanwhile, those typically developing kids who may have benefited from the inclusion of special needs peers in grades preK-2 will very likely suffer from the inclusion of those same kids.  No longer will they receive the benefits of differentiated instruction: instead, they must suffer through extra noise, aides teaching individually in the back of the room, and a range of distractions -- while they struggle to keep up with the High Stakes agenda.

All this happens, of course, if kids with special needs ARE included in the general education classroom.  But as is probably self-evident, this is likely to become less common since general education is focused on High Stakes Testing, and special needs kids are likely to get in the way of the required high scores.

Is it any wonder that our schools are having a tough time making Inclusion and the IDEA dovetail with No Child Left Behind?  When you write laws that directly compete with one another, you can expect, at the very least, a negative outcome.

Is Inclusion an Unreasonable Ideal?

In some circles, the idea of full inclusion for all, in all situations, is seen as an ideal.  It's easy to see why this is the case: the concept of equal access is extremely democratic.  When applied to concepts such as suffrage or civil rights, it's hard to argue with such an ideal.

But once you dig down even a little bit, the idea of full inclusion for all becomes much trickier.

Should "all" children be granted the right to play on elite ball teams? 

Should "all" teens be admitted to highly competitive universities?

Should cultural organizations such as museums be required to make their programs and exhibits intellectually accessible to "all," even to people who, for example, have disruptive behaviors or who lack the cognitive ability to grasp complex abstract ideas?

Most public organizations are more than willing to provide "separate but equal" opportunities for intellectually or developmentally challenged people to take part in their offerings.  Little League runs a special Challenger program for just that purpose, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art runs a Discovery program for a similar group.

There's no question in anyone's mind, however, that these separate offerings do not represent full inclusion.  After all, when a group of people is segregated from the mainstream, they are -- by definition -- NOT included.

Clearly, full inclusion of people with developmental and/or cognitive challenges requires compromise at some level.  Either the people being included have a second-rate experience, or the experience is changed in some basic ways to make a first rate experience possible. 

As soon as the experience is changed to meet the needs of those with developmental and/or cognitive challenges, there will be some who feel that the experience has been dumbed down, oversimplified, or otherwise lessened in value.

I can easily understand both perspectives in this particular debate. 

While full inclusion is, no doubt, an ideal, it seems that it is not always meaningful, comfortable, or even appropriate -- either for the general public or for the disabled community.  But once you agree that there are circumstances in which full inclusion may not be a good fit, you start down a slippery slope.  Is there ANY general community setting in which full inclusion is the right fit?

This important issue is not easy to resolve, and I can't offer a simple resolution. 

From a practical perspective, there will always be organizations and situations that are unable to accommodate individuals who don't "fit."  Yet that reality makes no difference when it comes to physical barriers: even Harvard and the Guggenheim are required to provide elevators, braille, and accommodations for the hard of hearing and deaf community.  How -- if at all -- can that requirement be expanded to those with autism or related disorders?

Your thoughts are welcome!