Michael Lopez of Highered Education has a very interesting and disturbing post on the push to "include" (not merely mainstream) severly retarded children in regular classrooms. Sadly, his analysis of the motives (self-deception about the true nature and capacities of these children) and consequences (mockery of the few capacities that such children do have) rings true.
There is another reason -- two separate reasons really -- that full inclusion is a VERY BAD IDEA. The first is that, as basic as it might be, being in and completing first grade means something, or at least it should. When you "finish" first grade, you should know... oh, I don't know, let's say the Alphabet and and the sounds of words, and some basic reading skills. You should know what sound a cow makes. You should know that 1 plus 1 is 2.But what are we saying to these kids when their academic achievements are equated with drooling in a chair and being able to hit a switch? It certainly must feel nice to teach students how to be nice and help care for a severely disabled classmate, but it is ultimately cruel to send children the message of "This is Ashley. She's just like you and me." Because she's not like them, and she never will be. It's insulting to say so.
Having just put a severely brain-injured child through the public school system, I have to agree. The teachers and staff did a very nice if somewhat thankless job, but it wasn't the same as pretending our child was "normal" or including him in every class. It can be the most heartbreaking thought in the world to realize your son or daughter will never be like the other kids, but unless as a parent you do so, you cheat your child and the rest of the family of whatever oportunities are available.
Comments