"Exile on Mainstream" Or Something Like That

I can see both sides of this argument, and while I think the idea of mainstreaming kids is great in theory, it sometimes fails in practice. I don't think the kids always benefit from being mainstreamed; they may be ridiculed/bullied by their peers because of their disabilities, and if they are disruptive in class they may be shunned. Kids are mean, and may become hostile towards classmates who are seen as attention seeking or "different".  For example, if "Marcus" has an ASD but is high functioning, and is mainstreamed in a classroom with kids who don't know what ASDs are, they may see his stereotyped hand-flapping as strange/humorous and mock him for it. Or, if Marcus has routines that he strictly follows, his peers may not understand why he gets upset when his routines are interrupted, whether by the lesson or by one of his classmates. At this point, Marcus' self-imposed structure has been thrown off. His classmates may assume Marcus is throwing a tantrum for attention, when really he's having an outburst born out of stress, frustration, and a lack of communication/understanding between himself and his teacher.

 On the teaching side of this prompt, I feel like the argument that  mainstreaming kids "mak[es] the teacher's lives more difficult" is missing the point-- it flips the focus of the discussion from the kids to the teachers, and it shouldn't. Certainly, public school teachers have a lot on their plate already, but I think the portrayal of teaching developmentally disabled students as an inconvenience is harmful!  With an attitude such as this, mainstreamed kids may not benefit if they're seen as a burden on their teachers because have different needs and require a different set of teaching skills. Typically, developmentally disabled students should have an IEP, or Individualized Learning Program which outlines their strengths, weaknesses, unique needs, educational goals, and strategies to best teach them. IEPs are designed to help teachers give developmentally disabled students the best learning experience they can. However,  IEP standards are not always followed, and many public school teachers aren't properly trained to deal with children who have developmental disorders and thus may not be able to respond to their students in an appropriate or helpful manner. A lack of training would just exacerbate problems for both teacher and mainstreamed student.

For all its flaws, I don't think mainstreaming developmentally disabled students is necessarily a bad idea, but for it to become truly beneficial,  public school systems would have to undergo major changes and more resources would have to be devoted to making it a better system that benefits everyone involved.

Helping those in Need

Schools do offer free services for children with developmental disabilities through a Resource Specialist Program (RSP).  But like anything that is free in public education, there are often too many kids that require a lot of attention, too few resources, and not enough trained educators.

My mother is a speech pathologist with RSP certification.  The process to be RSP certified is a difficult process that requires additional education beyond a university degree and credentialing.  In California you are required to have been a teacher for at least 3 years (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl625.pdf).  You are required to have this, and you will only make $55,000 in Los Angeles.  I think we’re fighting the right fight about the appropriate education, but we always need more with the growing rates of autistic kids (1 in 88 in USA).  We need more RSP teachers to help those that are working hard trying to help children with developmental disabilities.  Currently teachers are fighting a losing battle and we need to work to support them.

I don’t know if the student benefits from being “mainstreamed,” and I don’t know if peers gain insight or empathy.  As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more empathetic towards people that have developmental disabilities.  As a kid, I pitied them and even ridiculed them for being “different.”  But as long as we educate and inform children in the classroom, we can help everyone from the child with autism, to the teachers who don’t have to continually watch the child, and help make the school a better place with friendlier students.

Prompt 11/12

It is important for children of all learning levels to be able to participate in a learning environment that best suits their abilities but also pushes them to achieve higher goals.  It is not easy to offer the wide range of learning areas in every school or city but it is important to acknowledge  every level of learning.  This does not mean that we have to segregate the severly disabled from the highly intelligent.  It just means we need to find a better solution to providing the appropriate education at every level. 

Allowing disabled children to attend regular classes helps to build their self esteem and integrates them into society.  It also exposes normal children to the lives of the disabled and increases their understanding of how they live and that even though they may act and look different they are still human beings who need love and understanding. 

I have a friend who has downs syndrome and we do not allow his disability to control his life .  He has always been treated as an equal and this has helped him to grow and develop mentally and physically.  He will be graduating from high school in the spring and a lot of his success has been due to the fact that we accepted him as our equal. 

TL;DR special schools for special needs

On one end of the education spectrum, we have a group of children – prodigies, natural born leaders, folks that think outside the box, and those born “gifted”.  They are often found in advanced placement courses outside of peer learning environments, and at times go to school tailored to their natural talents.  On the other end of the spectrum, we have a second group of children – those that suffer from severe learning disabilities, autism, ADHD or are emotionally troubled.  We have remedial classes and free tutoring in public schools, and have dedicated entire alternative institutions to these children who do not fit into a standardized testing environment.

I don’t feel that public schools are the right environment for either group.  As a practical issue, not every child is going to succeed.  There are smart kids who didn’t score high enough on the one test that might have gotten them into a school that would’ve help develop their natural talents and reach their potential – they aren’t challenged and their boredom leads to failure.  There are also kids with learning disabilities not severe enough to warrant enrollment in a specialty school – they fall between the cracks because they aren’t catered to and their frustration of being misunderstood leads to failure.  With both groups, you also face the harsh reality of economic strain – giving education away for free doesn’t guarantee that a child will succeed, it merely advances the possibility that they might.

The subject of severity of developmental disabilities should also a factor.  In 3^rd grade, I sat next to a kid that had Tourette’s syndrome, and he suffered from involuntary muscle movement (most notably, the ability high-kick better than any cancan dancer I’ve seen to date).  While he was never vocally disruptive, he was constantly knocking things over.  Even though it was distracting, Danny had a ton of friends because we were taught that it was something he couldn’t control, and he never did it to hurt anyone on purpose.  We knew it was frustrating for him because we would often see him leave the room, crying quietly.  We didn’t treat him like a black sheep, and I’m appalled that would be a problem anywhere. 

There is a shame attached to the kids that don’t fit in that I think is the basis of our problem – if we are to help these children discover the possibility to succeed, we are perpetuating frustration by failing them in the public school system.  I view autism as something that cannot be cured, but perhaps the symptoms can be alleviated in less severe cases through behavior modification therapy.  Obviously ADHD can be tempered with psychopharmaceuticals, but it’s still not a cure.  These developmental disorders need to be managed, under the care of people licensed to do so.  I think the most important word in this week’s prompt is “appropriate”.  We’re not stigmatizing these children by placing them in appropriate environments to help cultivate their individual learning needs – we are stigmatizing them by keeping them in environments where they are almost guaranteed to fail.    

Developmental Disabilities

 

Federal guidelines already support the low income population in various ways. A parent may receive food stamps, health care or money through social services, however, this does not guarantee the child will benefit from it! The family’s assistance in food stamps can buy junk food, sugar and pop versus healthy fruits and vegetables, health services does not guarantee a good physician, and money received could be spent getting drunk or high instead of paying their bills. I am not aware of any officials that follow the parent’s around or regulate actions that are acceptable.

In order for our children’s peers to gain insight on ADHD or Autism, we must first understand the problem, as well as develop a solution. Some educators are quick referring children for pharmaceuticals treating learning difficulties, but does this mean they comprehend the big picture? Is the effort put forth benefiting themselves or the child in need? Do we have simple solutions for complex problems? I think evaluating all agencies on a regular basis would be a good place to start. This may allow us to put our local agencies under the scope as long as we can bypass the bias opinions and critically rethink our society’s needs.

Autistic line of demarcation.

There was a story published recently about a mother in California, her son and the school he attended. The son, David Swanson, is twenty one years old. He is autistic, mute and diabetic. He was discriminated against and force fed at school. David is able to communicate with the use of an I pad, but he was forced to leave it outside the classroom because teachers feared he may be using it to record what went on in the classroom. David has a private nurse that accompanies him to class that has acted as a witness to the bullying and cruel treatments he was subjected to. The school, upon facing further litigation, offered $86,000 dollars to David's mother to put him in a private school where his needs would be better identified with. She declined the offer.  She is still suing the school, but wants David to attend said school because federal law says he is entitled to an education. This is a fascinating story because it is easy to debate both sides. Public schools are required to provide an education to any student with a disability until they are of age. In this case "of age" is through the twenty first year of life. David's mother is within her rights to expect that they( the school district) do just this. Her stance will undoubtedly help pave the way for children facing similar problems. But I can't help but wonder what her "Rosa Park's" moment will cost her son. If this is a law, then teachers and especially schools, should be aware and prepared to deal with any special need that is out there. The bullying by classmates and teachers alike, is unacceptable. I don't think that we are creating children to be more accepting by having autistic or other special needs in their classrooms. Tolerance is something that should be taught at home, long before it can be taught at school. And in the cases that it isn't, and one child bullies another ( disability, present or not) the bully should be dealt with swiftly. I would that a similar stance be taken as that of the military, America does not negotiate with terrorists. Our children are this country's greatest resource, not oil or gold or any other item usually associated with money. Teachers should be able to explain whatever disability they are working with to the other children of the class, but if the empathy of the other students isn't already there to work with, I doubt the teacher will be able to evoke it. And at who's expense?

Losing proposition?

I'm going to approach this topic from a slightly different angle bases upon the conversations I've had with my sister who is an educator of elementary school students in eastern Montana.  She has approximately 20 students in any given year in her classes.  Our discussions have often focused on the students that are falling behind in class or were behind when they started her class.  Those students tend to have learning disabilities of some sort, we rarely discussed specific disabilities, but instead discussed how she was to approach educating the entire class to prepare them for the next year of schooling and beyond.  If my sister felt inclined she could spend the entire school year focusing on those few students and gently bringing them along until they reached the necessary milestones, proficiency reading, arithmetic, writing, etc.  However if she spent that much time ensuring the students with disabilities were keeping up then the average students and the above average students would quickly become bored and not reach their full potential in the year.  How do educators find the balance between keeping their average and above average students focused and moving forward without leaving behind students with disabilities?  As my sister has found most teachers prior to her just focused on the average students and essentially just passed the below average students onto the next year without caring whether or not they were prepared.  

This brings me to a point where I can see both sides of the argument.  The majority of the students were prepared and educated to a sufficient point that they could move along in their academic education.  The small minority that wasn't able to keep up was ignored or given an insufficient amount of attention to succeed.  So where is that balance?  Do we insist that our educators provide more attention to students that can do less with it?  That is a harsh statement but the upper level students are more likely to go onto college and contribute more to society whereas the bottom level students will likely provide less to society after completing, if they do complete, school.  But, are the lower level students contributing less because no one could or would spend the time necessary to bring them along?  Or were they going to end up their regardless of the attention given to them?  I certainly don't have the answer to that but it begs for debate.  Do we spend more time with students that struggle and the odds say are not going to make it through college anyway, or do we focus on the students that are likely to succeed?

Mainstreaming.

As a child I was diagnosed with numerous learning disabilities, my first grade teacher told my mother there was no point in educating me in a normal classroom because the only job I would ever be able to have would be volunteering at Goodwill. I struggled with reading, math, as well as many physical limitation, such as having limited ability to balance, I would walk up and down stairs without alternating legs. When I was in elementary school I spent about half and then later a quarter my time in a special education classroom I also spent 2 hours three times a week with an occupational therapist and special education specialist. I was never disruptive in classes, I would often get in trouble because my teachers often though I was not listening because I would not look at them when they were speaking, I would doodle or play with things on my desk. I spent part of middle school in a special education classroom. When I was in 7th grade I decided I was tired of having a learning disability diagnosis, I didn't feel like I needed special education. I struggled in my classes while mainstreamed but I also learned more. When I was no longer taken out of a classroom to be taught somewhere else my belief in my ability increased. I feel like being taken out of classroom only told me that  I could not succeed, the more time I spent in the mainstream classroom the better I did in school. I think that if I had continued to spend my time in special education classrooms there is no way I would have gone to college. I have overcome most of my learning disabilities through learning who I learn and how it is different then others, but I don't think I would have learned this without being in a mainstream classroom.

Response to prompt for 11/12/13

Negative outcomes from placing ASD diagnosed children in conventional classrooms may include academic hardships and the being labeled the "black sheep" among peers. Depending on the circumstance, children diagnosed with ASD may or may not benefit from being "mainstreamed". Obviously, they should be placed in an academically and socially supportive environment. Positive outcomes from adding this diversity to classrooms hopefully include the rest of the class gaining a special kind of insight into the hardships of the child diagnosed. Through insight, the other kids will hopefully become empathetic. Involving a child with ASD in a standard classroom may seem to make the teacher's job more difficult. However, if the teacher has patience and a willingness to work with the child, the classroom will be enriched with awareness and understanding.

Response to Prompt for 11/12

I believe it is very important for all children to encounter others of all backgrounds, ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, religions, and academic abilities in their school experience as a means of gaining empathy and understanding the world around them and the different types of people who inhabit it. However, putting children with severely hindering learning or autism spectrum disorders in "mainstreamed" classrooms with unsympathetic peers and without specially trained teachers may not be doing anyone a favor. The child with the disorder is likely to encounter social problems as well as academic ones.

I remember having an extremely hyperactive boy in my 3rd grade class. It was a private religious school so the teachers were quality and the class sizes were less than 20. Today, that boy may have been diagnosed with ADHD, he may have even been back then, but no one knew if he was. He was just constantly getting out of his seat, interrupting in class, speaking too loudly during break times, and playing too roughly at recess. It's not that anyone disliked him as a person, but he didn't really have friends because no one wanted to be associated with him. Everyone knew he would probably get them in trouble with the teacher too or accidentally hurt them in his sprees of manic activity. He became somewhat of an outcast in the class, which probably just contributed to his frustration. This was not bullying by any means, just the product of a child who had different needs than the rest of the class. He did not come back to the school the next year.

This boy was not even necessarily diagnosed with any sort of disorder, but I vividly remember this experience. I remember how frustrated the teacher became, how the whole class tried to avoid him, and how terrible it must have felt to believe no one liked you.

For this reason, I don't think that children with these disabilities benefit from being "mainstreamed". Although it is good for children to be exposed to all different types of people, it should not be at the expense of someone else. These children can suffer terribly in the social realm and be overlooked academically. Children with developmental disabilities SHOULD have free, public, and appropriate education, but maybe the type of education we are deeming "appropriate" for everyone else, it not at all appropriate for their needs. Perhaps a free and public school devoted exclusively to these children would be more appropriate.

Prompt for 11/12

Federal regulations state that children with developmental disabilities will have free, public, and appropriate education, but what are the practical implications of this practice? Does the student benefit from being "mainstreamed?" Do their peers gain insight or empathy? Do we enrich classrooms, or make teachers' lives more difficult? Consider either a learning disorder or an autism spectrum disorder in your discussion. This site has a more detailed description of autism, and autism spectrum disorders.