 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO |
Staff |
Links |
Guest Column
|
Children with disabilities deserve The giant step making these children full-fledged students By ED McMANUS It's one of those issues that has polarized the people concerned with it. Either you're for inclusion or you're against it, and that's too bad because it didn't have to work out that way. Inclusion is the practice of allowing children with disabilities to attend their neighborhood schools — the schools their brothers and sisters and neighbor children attend. And not down the hall in a special room, mind you, but in the very classroom they'd be in if they didn't have a disability. Many parents and educators think that's a great idea, provided that the child has the supports and aids needed to make it work. But other parents and teachers just as vigorously oppose it; they contend that both kinds of kids — those with disabilities and those without - are better off if they are educated separately. (Some proponents of inclusion can't help but see a comparison between special education and the "separate but equal" doctrine that was struck down by the Supreme Court nearly 40 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.) Prior to the 1970s, children with disabilities had few opportunities for meaningful education. It wasn't until 1969 that the state of Illinois mandated services to them. The real breakthrough nationally came in 1975, when Congress passed legislation requiring public schools to provide an "appropriate" education to children with disabilities. Then the special education system was established, and many of them were placed in separate schools. But after a decade of experience, educators came to believe this was doing more harm than good. The concepts of mainstreaming, integration and inclusion followed. Mainstreaming and integration involve moving "special ed" kids into "regular" classes for part of each day. Inclusion goes a giant step further; it makes the children full-fledged members of the "regular" student body, while providing them with whatever they need to function in regular classes. This is in line with the federal law (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), which requires each public agency to insure: "... that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public and private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who do not have a disability, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environments occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." An analysis of the legislative history of that law by the U.S. Office of Education indicated that Congress believed inclusion was vital in order to provide appropriate modeling for children with disabilities ("modeling" in this case expanded to mean peers as models and the premise that children learn a great deal from one another); in order to prepare them for living as adults in an integrated society; and in order to prevent discrimination against them. Inclusion isn't some wild idea dreamed up by radical parents. In addition to being mandated by Congress, it has been strongly endorsed by educators, including the prestigious National Association of State Boards of Education, which recently pronounced special education a failure and called for "a fundamental shift in delivery of education" to an inclusive system. Allow me to put this on a personal level. My wife and I have a 17-year-old daughter, Laura, who has multiple handicaps. She has spent most of her life either in separate schools or in a separate classroom of regular schools. This year, finally, she is in a "real" high school, and she is thriving. She requires a full-time aide with her, but that was the case in special education, too. She can't walk, but she gets around in a wheelchair. She can't talk, but she can type out words on a battery-operated communication device. She goes to her home room every morning, and she takes a variety of courses, mainly in the arts, as well as physical education and keyboarding. She has a job at the local drug store and has joined an after-school club. This year, for the first time in her life, Laura was listed in the student directory! It may seem like a small thing, but to us it was symbolic — Laura isn't stuck in "special ed" anymore. Does Laura's presence interfere with the education of the other kids? Absolutely not. On the contrary, it exposes them to the fact there are some people who are different. It will make them better adults some day. Are there some children with disabili- 10/February 1994/Illinois Issues ties who might be disruptive? Sure, and educators need to find ways to deal with that problem. Banning all kids with disabilities is not an appropriate way. Are there certain children who would be better off not being included? Possibly, but again, that's no reason to ban everyone else. Each child should be considered individually, and each child's placement should be what is the best for that child. Most important, are school boards, in search of ways to save money, liable to "dump" disabled children in regular schools without the supports they need? Sure, that's a danger, and it's something we must all be vigilant about. It's a concern that many teachers have expressed, and it's a legitimate concern. But once more, it's not a reason to oppose inclusion; it's a reason to be vigilant, to make sure it doesn't happen. Inclusion is not very widespread. That is because many schools districts have not embraced it — they argue that the term "to the maximum extent appropriate" gives then an out — and most parents don't have the wherewithal to take them to court, which is the only way to enforce a law. But recent court decisions have been solidly pro-child — notably the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last May upholding the right of a New Jersey child to be educated with his nondisabled peers. In the schools that are doing it, inclusion is working. There are success stories in various parts of Illinois and throughout the country. Nevertheless, the Illinois State Board of Education has dragged its feet on adopting a position statement supportive of inclusion. The board seemed poised to do so last year, but the opponents of inclusion managed to scare them off. Their principal arguments were that it could lead to dumping and that it wasn't right for certain kids. I can sympathize with the parents who are fearful of inclusion. Change can be scary, and it's important that it be done right. But it is my firm conviction that segregation has been very harmful to many, many children with disabilities, and that it must end. We owe that much to Laura and all the other children. Ed McManus is cochair of the Illinois Coalition on School Inclusion and a member of the Board of Education of School District 39 (Wilmette).
individuals to think and act independently.
It is now illegal, or quasi-illegal to: associate solely, socially or in business, with persons homogeneous to ourselves; hire or fire based solely on qualification, ability and productivity; lend money or resources based solely on risk; practice religious beliefs or life styles beyond those prescribed by society as "main stream" (Waco or Ruby Ridge); destroy rat habitat to save homes from destruction.
However it is legal to subject a person, adjudged "not guilty" by a jury, to double jeopardy if that finding results in governmental displeasure.
It may soon be illegal to select medical attention based on preference or ability to pay for services.
Recent studies indicate criminality may be a physical aberration and, as such, may soon add another criminal defense — that of discrimination against a disabled person.
It appears individual liberties will continue under assault until the "elite" can determine what is best for you (as long as it is best for them). Our president receives his "greatest pleasure" from the knowledge his actions change the lives of people. Our VP feels the greatest threat to the advancement of society is the right of private property.
We may yet see a ground swell of the sentiment of Patrick Henry — "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Eldred E. Denny
Editor: I read the article by Paul Green in the December issue (Illinois Issues, December 1993, page 34). Because of that article and other things that Paul has stood for and prophesied correctly, I believe that he should be made the "king of the for-or-or-est."
Anthony F. Spina
Caroline Gherardini, Editor
February 1994/Illinois Issues/11 |
|
|