“At least the consumer lessons are ones that we can hopefully use.”

By educating consumers, I was referring to advertisements and other forms of marketing communications. How many advertisements do you find useful? (That tidbit came out of an advertising textbook — oddly, it was something the authors seemed proud of.)

“But if we were properly educated as kids, we probably wouldn’t need to use them in the first place, because we would fill the holes that would normally be filled by consuming.”

I suspect, at the very least, if our education system was more effective we’d have more discerning consumers. A basic understanding of critical thinking goes a long way to remaining skeptical about marketing messages.

“Segregated environments would probably include Montessori (which may have been on this blog before) or Steiner/Waldorf. Both of those have the teacher for more than one year.”

In the environment Alex & Ben are in, they have the same special education teacher throughout grade school. At least, they would if the teacher stuck around. So far one retired and one had a baby and decided to stay home afterwards, so it’s not like people are leaving because of the school. But, aside from staff changes, they’ll have the same special education teacher throughout their grade school years. I’m not sure about middle or high school.

At this school, they also have a rotating schedule. Two years in a row with the same regular education teacher.

“I’ve watched his behavior dissolve on several blogs, and I hate seeing people get attacked. That’s all.”

I certainly appreciate that. I’ve observed his(?) behavior on other blogs as well. Sometimes he(?) actually brings up relevant points.

“But I would argue that inclusive classes can be just as variable.”

I do, too, but I also believe adequate training, proper support (for teachers & students), and proper funding would go a long way to alleviate that. Of course, that starts with create changes at the college level and recruiting more students so schools can be adequately staffed with trained personnel. Like I said, it’s a big dream.

“I really do believe that some children benefit from a more structured, adapted, and private classroom for at least part of the day than can be practically provided in a mainstream class.”

I agree, and there are ways to adapt programs for that need. Willy is included in the mainstream environment, but gets one-on-one support as needed. He has a visual schedule, he can take sensory breaks, and he’s pulled out from the classroom for testing and some other purposes. He’s also truly part of the class.

The difference, of course, is that Willy’s language skills are almost on par with his peers, so despite the modifications, he’s covering the same material at the same speed. Alex and Ben are not so educated. Their lesson plans are entirely different, which means (unfortunately) that they will never get the depth and breadth of formal education that Willy gets, because they will always be behind. Full inclusion wouldn’t change that aspect of it, at least not without significant changes in how we teach non-verbal children.

When it was determined in Alex’s IEP (years ago) that Alex would be shipped off to a different school, we went round and round. In the end, it came down to a logistics problem: Nobody at our homeschool was adequately trained to provide the educational support and lesson plans that Alex would need. Every other reason for segregation had a way around it. This was the clincher.

“I apologize for getting my terminology wrong.”

Not a problem. I’m not sure how established the distinction I make is. A lot of people, especially those in education, use them interchangeably. Personally, I think the distinction of support is very important.

“As for education reform…it’s such a big challenge that I don’t even know where to begin! A lot needs to change, that’s for sure!”

I agree. That’s why I’d like to see the whole system re-evaluated. Perhaps, if such an evaluation were to occur, they would come up with an entirely different solution that I cannot imagine. But, the problems are so pervasive that piece-meal fixes aren’t really going to correct the problem. We’ve been doing that for centuries, and it really doesn’t seem to be working.

But if we were properly educated as kids, we probably wouldn’t need to use them in the first place, because we would fill the holes that would normally be filled by consuming.

Segregated environments would probably include Montessori (which may have been on this blog before) or Steiner/Waldorf. Both of those have the teacher for more than one year.

It’s absolutely your choice what to do with Lurker. I’ve watched his behavior dissolve on several blogs, and I hate seeing people get attacked. That’s all.

I see your point on the trickiness of segregated classes. It’s an important one. But I would argue that inclusive classes can be just as variable. I really do believe that some children benefit from a more structured, adapted, and private classroom for at least part of the day than can be practically provided in a mainstream class.

I apologize for getting my terminology wrong.

As for education reform…it’s such a big challenge that I don’t even know where to begin! A lot needs to change, that’s for sure!

“1. Ignore Lurker. Don’t feed trolls…”

If Lurker is willing to engage in discussion, I’m willing to oblige. However, discussion is needed or else I will ignore the comment. But, “don’t feed trolls” is too much along the lines of dismissing people who disagree for my personal tastes. It’s a personal choice.

“Namely, I interned in a self-contained room for years, and may be returning there this winter. It was a wonderful environment…”

The environment of a self-contained room depends a great deal on the principal, the teacher(s), and the aides. Like any other classroom, the staff can rise above the minimum requirements to create something special. However, the willingness and ability to do so is not a requirement. Furthermore, if a child follows the traditional pattern, a bad teacher is generally out of the child’s life after a year. In a segregated classroom, the child could be subjected to that teacher for years. Too much hinges on the quality of staff and the quality of staff is subject to too much variablity to the “wonderful environment” argument to sway me too much.

Early Childhood, for example, is a self-contained environment. It could be considered segregated, because children with special needs are receiving a service not available to all students. This is not exactly true, because (at least around here) typically-developing peers are included in the environment as models; so it’s selective, but not segregated. In this environment, my children have had some really great teachers and have been included in some “wonderful environments.” Luckily, this was the first experience we had with such an environment. We moved, and the next school was not wonderful. We were able to move again to get back to the wonderful environment. The quality of staff really does make a huge difference.

After Early Childhood, segregated classrooms are much more problematic. The school my younger children attend tries very hard, and for the most part they do a good job (three different teachers in three years, so we’ve already seen quite a bit of variability). But… My children still aren’t treated as equals. They are segregated, and that has both short-term and long-term effectives on their development.

“I’m just saying that full inclusion isn’t always desirable. It did me more harm than good, I think.”

If you’re in college and receiving academic accommodations for the first time, you weren’t in a fully inclusive environment. Full inclusion programs are different than mainstreaming kids on the borderline. Full inclusion would have provided you with necessary supports. It would also have provided your peers with necessary supports for accepting and including you.

“3. Have you considered what the effect of an IEP for every kid would be? Everyone is neurologically diverse, and yes our classrooms need to do a better job adjusting for that, but I’m not convinced that added paperwork is the solution.”

If we were to merely add all kids to the current, bureaucratic system of individualize education, the system would be overrun. But that’s not what I’m suggesting. The system itself does not work. If it did, we wouldn’t have so many kids dropping out, we wouldn’t have so many students graduating without being able to read or do basic mathematics, and we wouldn’t see a need for so many charter schools and similar alternative programs to try to educate kids. Tweaking the system won’t work. My suggestion has nothing to do with adding more paperwork, and everything to do with actually thinking about the specific needs of individual students.

The system needs to be re-designed–everything should be subject to question, nothing of what we’re doing should be kept unless it can be proven that it is effective and valuable. It’s a big, huge dream that I probably won’t see in my lifetime, and may never come to pass. I realize that. But, it absolutely disgusts me that, in the U.S., we spend more educating consumers (by billions of dollars) than we do educating our kids. Our priorities are wrong.

“Most kids fit within a certain spectrum of abilities, needs, and learning styles. They *can* be taught as a group.”

To some extent, they can be, and teaching students in this manner is efficient. But it is not the most effective way to teach them. Many students fall behind without having needs exceptional enough to boot them out of the system. Very few students are taught in a manner that lives up to their potential to learn. Even fewer of those students do so without receiving exceptional assistance that comes from either getting extra time with the teacher (I, myself, benefitted from a lot of that) or having parents that can afford educational opportunities outside the school system.

The U.S. doesn’t prioritize teaching our children effectively, we prioritize teaching our children efficiently. Learning effectiveness is sacrificed in favor of the efficiency of standardization.

2. I have mixed feelings about complete integration. Namely, I interned in a self-contained room for years, and may be returning there this winter. It was a wonderful environment, and I remember wishing that I had been educated in one when I was younger. I found it was much easier for the kids to receive the very individualized education they needed in such a setting. That said, there was also great value and emphasis placed on joining their classes regularly, with varying levels of support, and that was just as important for the other kids in the classroom as it was for them. I’m just saying that full inclusion isn’t always desirable. It did me more harm than good, I think.

3. Have you considered what the effect of an IEP for every kid would be? Everyone is neurologically diverse, and yes our classrooms need to do a better job adjusting for that, but I’m not convinced that added paperwork is the solution. Most kids fit within a certain spectrum of abilities, needs, and learning styles. They *can* be taught as a group. It is only a very few who need the extra attention and accommodations an IEP provides.

I’m at college now, and receiving academic accommodations for the first time in my life. My chemistry professor, while giving me an oral exam, remarked that she was glad that this worked so well for me and didn’t mind doing it, but if she had to do this for everyone she’d never get anything else done! The problem is the same at the lower levels of education.

Just some thoughts.

So, let’s try something a bit more specific. Do you disagree with my personal take on the utility and applicability of the concept of neurodiversity? Do you disagree with my description of the U.S. public school system? Or, do you disagree with something else entirely?