The effective use of “special” education for all children can eliminate the need for students or educational professionals to “swim against the mainstream” in order to find success in the education system, Mr. Thomas maintains.
THE SEPARATE field of special education needs to continue its evolution. No longer a completely distinct entity, special education should complete its dissolution and begin a total merger into what is now termed general education. Pete Idstein’s December Kappan article, “Swimming Against the Mainstream,” is an example of the systemic weaknesses that reflect the need to combine both general and special education into a more substantial system of education for all. Idstein’s examples of mismanagement and unequal use of instructional resources serve to point out the divisiveness caused by the artificial separation of the field of education.
Idstein has presented an example of Ronald Doe, an above-average second-grader who, through his “behavior,” confounded the “best efforts” of a group of education professionals. According to Idstein, Ronald’s “assault on the educational environment” meant that “hours of instruction [were] stolen from 31 students.”
It may be argued that the “Level 1 special education classroom” that Idstein desired for Ronald Doe was not truly the least restrictive environment. Idstein does not make a good case for his determination of the need for an alternative educational placement for Ronald. Nor does he make a good case for the procedures followed in Ronald Doe’s case. As an educator I question Idstein’s interpretation of the concept of “least restrictive environment.” I also question his and his colleagues’ use of due process to place Ronald Doe in what may be termed a more restrictive instructional environment.
One definition of learning states that “learning reflects a change of behavior.” Ronald was apparently learning, “yet his behavior did not change.” He received instruction at every turn from Idstein and from his teachers. Ronald learned that, when he pushed the correct buttons, he would be isolated. He apparently learned few positive, productive skills throughout his ordeal. Frustrated with his “swim against the mainstream,” Ronald could only “cry and moan and eventually fall asleep.” What were Idstein and his staff attempting to do for Ronald?
Ronald and his mother were apparently of a different race and socioeconomic class than those who would educate him. He “lacked a home phone,” and his mother lacked her own means of transportation. Although these differences are hidden in context, Idstein seems to put emphasis on them. Idstein also did not seem to adequately define the level of participation expected by or allowed for Ronald’s mother in the educational process.
Visits to Ronald’s home, a set of encyclopedias, food and gifts, transportation for his mother, and many meetings that amounted to “more than a few extra miles” of effort expended were among the interventions that Idstein and his staff tried in order to “help Ronald fit in and feel a part of school.” Are all these efforts for Ronald’s education? Idstein’s description appears to point out more differences in socioeconomic class between the school staff and Ronald’s family, but it also displays no real understanding of Ronald’s educational needs and little interest in his rights to equal educational opportunity.
It is not difficult to see why the efforts mentioned above and the additional efforts of the “full-scale campaign” resulted in “progress thwarted at every turn.” The stream against which Idstein and his staff were swimming was most certainly one of their own making.
Idstein tries to make the point that the “bureaucracy” limits what educators can do for all students. He seems to put an inordinate emphasis on how Ronald’s behavior affected other students — not on the staff’s inability to deal with Ronald within the classroom. What Idstein apparently does not realize is that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is designed for those who will use it to work for, not against, the needs of all students. Instructional delivery and learning environment need to be designed to fit students’ styles, needs, and characteristics — not the other way around. The process of education can be more effective and ultimately more efficient when a student-centered mainstream is created in an environment that promotes learning for all students.
Ronald Doe was “duly unimpressed with the best-laid plans” of those who would be his teachers. Ronald required a “higher level of [instructional] services.” He received isolation, resistance, segregation, and limitations based on his differences as a learner and a person; he was given no reason to seek positive progress. Ronald’s several calls for help were answered with a “cumbersome bureaucracy” (led by Idstein) that was unable to create a truly less restrictive learning environment for Ronald.
The system of education in our country exists to provide all students with the skills to live within the “mainstream.” Our public schools currently provide educational opportunity for all children. The mainstream may at times present challenges. We may be required to go with the flow or against it. Skills gained from education in school should help students to navigate life as it is, with or without further support.
Pete Idstein describes a situation in which educators have made a choice to fight against the mainstream of education; they seek but one route to a “higher level of service.” While there can be no one route to educational success, there can be one system of education that accepts differences, strengths, and weaknesses of all students. This system would then build on individual needs by applying a variety of instructional techniques, motivational systems, and resources to the total education of students in settings and environments that limit resistance to effective instruction.
As a separate part of education, primarily since the passage of P.L. 94-142 (now IDEA), special education created a knowledge base in instructional practice that holds great promise for the education of all children. This concept of educational practice (not referred to here as “special”) is founded in the individualization of instruction and in the effective use of due process procedures, parent participation, and the idea of least restrictive environments to strengthen “school-based concerns” identified by Idstein as “instruction and learning.”
Maintaining two separate systems of education may have weakened the education of all students. The effective use of “special” education for all children can eliminate the need for students or educational professionals to “swim against the mainstream” in order to find success in the education system.
Tags: Alternative Education, Children, Disabilities, E Learning, Education, Education Class, Education For, Education Of, Education System, Educational, Educator, Family, For Students, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, Instruction, Learning, Learning Environment, Management, Of Education, Public, Public School, Public Schools, Scale, School, Schools, Special, Special Education, Student, Students, Teach, Teacher, Teachers