I work at a charter school for kids with autism and other learning and behavioral disabilities. You could technically call it a "special needs" school. My role in the classroom is that of a paraprofessional--a teacher's aid. While the teacher writes the lesson plans and IEPs, teaches the lectures, and plays the lead in the classroom, I put out fires. I work one-on-one with students who need additional help (which often includes dealing with students who are having meltdowns), I race up and down the stairs with students who need a sensory break, and I take over when the teacher is gone. It's only been two months since I started working at this school, but in the short time I've been there I've learned something critical. There is no such thing as a special needs child.
In the last 200 years or so, our concept of mental and physical disability has drastically changed. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the words "moron" and "idiot" were terms commonly used to describe someone with mental retardation. Parents with enough money to afford it would send their disabled children to an institution where they would be looked after, albeit without much in the way of human interaction or kindness. Therapy for mental illness could be cruel and even torturous. But most families couldn't afford to send their children to an institution for care or treatment, and many of them wound up on the streets or in prisons. Today, we mainstream our disabled children, placing them in classrooms with typical kids. We avoid words like "idiot", and words like "retarded" are treated with the same contempt as some racial slurs. Our perspective has shifted from one of shame and avoidance to one of accommodation.
We use that term a lot in special education. Every child with an identified disability is required, by law, to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) which specifies which accommodations to the regular education system that child is entitled to. This can include anything from a personal scribe to additional time on tests to microphones to amplify the teacher's voice. But the ultimate goal is to keep the child in the mainstream classroom, which is typically classified as the "least restrictive environment" (the setting in which the child's educational opportunities are the least restricted). The reasoning behind this system is sound--we want to provide these children with the opportunity to socialize and gain valuable skills in cooperation and interaction--and in many ways is a direct response to the previous system of institutionalizing children with disabilities. But I take issue with two critical parts of this arrangement, both of which are evident in our terminology as well as our thinking. The first is that we think these children's needs are unique to only them ("special needs"), and the second is that we think we need to "accommodate" rather than "facilitate" their learning.
The school I work at functions because of three unique and foundational elements. First is reduced class sizes. Most of the classes at our school have between 8 and 16 students in them. Second is having a paraprofessional in every classroom. This allows the show to go on, even when one student--or even more than one student--is having a breakdown or more trouble than the others in grasping a concept. It also cuts the ratio of teachers to students down to somewhere around 1:6. Third is weekly professional development meetings that teach a range of topics from including sensory breaks in the classroom to handling behavior problems. There are several other incredible things about this school, including an amazing OT (occupational therapy) room, a well trained CPI team (that responds to situations where kids are acting out violently), and a staff that understands autism and learning disabilities extremely well. But even with everything that makes our school so unique, we still aren't able to meet all of the needs of every child the way that would truly benefit them the most. Because when all is said and done, we're still a public school, and we don't have the resources or the freedom to teach to every student individually. Our school changes lives for some students. We help kids make friends, get good grades, and feel confident for the first time in their lives. But we're still required to teach the common core, and provide a free and appropriate education to the "masses", not just to the students who stand in greatest need.
All of the things that my school does to cater to the needs of kids with disabilities are things the United States education system could consider "accommodations." They diverge from the norm of large class sizes, considerable teacher-to-student ratios, and rigid structure and expectations that are found within the majority of the public school system. The assumption is that because most kids can function within those parameters, providing anything outside of those parameters should be done only when there is proof that success within the educational system is impossible without "accommodation." But the reality is that every student can benefit from smaller class sizes and teacher-to-student ratios. Every student can benefit from regular sensory breaks and one-on-one assistance. Every student needs to feel like their success is important to their teachers and their peers. Those things should not be considered "special needs". They are universal needs.
The point of mainstreaming children with disabilities is to avoid restricting their education, but the very idea that we have to provide them with additional accommodations suggests that the mainstream system is already too restrictive for them to succeed without stretching the boundaries. What if we provided all children with the basics of a small class, a paraprofessional as well as a teacher, and sensory tools to help add kinesthetics back into the learning process? Not as accommodations, but as essentials. How many of the kids in the US with IEPs now would never have to receive any additional accommodations? It's hard to know for sure, but I would be shocked if students all across the country didn't show dramatic improvement--both those with and those without disabilities. Of course, some students would still need additional help. But we'd stop looking at those students as needed to be accommodated--as having "special" needs--and we'd start looking at their educational plans as a way to facilitate their learning.
I would consider the major failing of the US educational system to be that we expect all students to learn and succeed the same way as everyone else around them. We forget that each child is an individual with their own mental, emotional, and educational struggles. We make the assumption that people who can't succeed in this model must have special needs. If working in a "special needs" school has taught me anything, it's that everyone's needs are special, specific, unique. I may never have the power to change the way our educational system works, but I believe that if we could change from a mindset of accommodation to a mindset of facilitation, everyone would benefit.
In the last 200 years or so, our concept of mental and physical disability has drastically changed. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the words "moron" and "idiot" were terms commonly used to describe someone with mental retardation. Parents with enough money to afford it would send their disabled children to an institution where they would be looked after, albeit without much in the way of human interaction or kindness. Therapy for mental illness could be cruel and even torturous. But most families couldn't afford to send their children to an institution for care or treatment, and many of them wound up on the streets or in prisons. Today, we mainstream our disabled children, placing them in classrooms with typical kids. We avoid words like "idiot", and words like "retarded" are treated with the same contempt as some racial slurs. Our perspective has shifted from one of shame and avoidance to one of accommodation.
We use that term a lot in special education. Every child with an identified disability is required, by law, to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) which specifies which accommodations to the regular education system that child is entitled to. This can include anything from a personal scribe to additional time on tests to microphones to amplify the teacher's voice. But the ultimate goal is to keep the child in the mainstream classroom, which is typically classified as the "least restrictive environment" (the setting in which the child's educational opportunities are the least restricted). The reasoning behind this system is sound--we want to provide these children with the opportunity to socialize and gain valuable skills in cooperation and interaction--and in many ways is a direct response to the previous system of institutionalizing children with disabilities. But I take issue with two critical parts of this arrangement, both of which are evident in our terminology as well as our thinking. The first is that we think these children's needs are unique to only them ("special needs"), and the second is that we think we need to "accommodate" rather than "facilitate" their learning.
The school I work at functions because of three unique and foundational elements. First is reduced class sizes. Most of the classes at our school have between 8 and 16 students in them. Second is having a paraprofessional in every classroom. This allows the show to go on, even when one student--or even more than one student--is having a breakdown or more trouble than the others in grasping a concept. It also cuts the ratio of teachers to students down to somewhere around 1:6. Third is weekly professional development meetings that teach a range of topics from including sensory breaks in the classroom to handling behavior problems. There are several other incredible things about this school, including an amazing OT (occupational therapy) room, a well trained CPI team (that responds to situations where kids are acting out violently), and a staff that understands autism and learning disabilities extremely well. But even with everything that makes our school so unique, we still aren't able to meet all of the needs of every child the way that would truly benefit them the most. Because when all is said and done, we're still a public school, and we don't have the resources or the freedom to teach to every student individually. Our school changes lives for some students. We help kids make friends, get good grades, and feel confident for the first time in their lives. But we're still required to teach the common core, and provide a free and appropriate education to the "masses", not just to the students who stand in greatest need.
All of the things that my school does to cater to the needs of kids with disabilities are things the United States education system could consider "accommodations." They diverge from the norm of large class sizes, considerable teacher-to-student ratios, and rigid structure and expectations that are found within the majority of the public school system. The assumption is that because most kids can function within those parameters, providing anything outside of those parameters should be done only when there is proof that success within the educational system is impossible without "accommodation." But the reality is that every student can benefit from smaller class sizes and teacher-to-student ratios. Every student can benefit from regular sensory breaks and one-on-one assistance. Every student needs to feel like their success is important to their teachers and their peers. Those things should not be considered "special needs". They are universal needs.
The point of mainstreaming children with disabilities is to avoid restricting their education, but the very idea that we have to provide them with additional accommodations suggests that the mainstream system is already too restrictive for them to succeed without stretching the boundaries. What if we provided all children with the basics of a small class, a paraprofessional as well as a teacher, and sensory tools to help add kinesthetics back into the learning process? Not as accommodations, but as essentials. How many of the kids in the US with IEPs now would never have to receive any additional accommodations? It's hard to know for sure, but I would be shocked if students all across the country didn't show dramatic improvement--both those with and those without disabilities. Of course, some students would still need additional help. But we'd stop looking at those students as needed to be accommodated--as having "special" needs--and we'd start looking at their educational plans as a way to facilitate their learning.
I would consider the major failing of the US educational system to be that we expect all students to learn and succeed the same way as everyone else around them. We forget that each child is an individual with their own mental, emotional, and educational struggles. We make the assumption that people who can't succeed in this model must have special needs. If working in a "special needs" school has taught me anything, it's that everyone's needs are special, specific, unique. I may never have the power to change the way our educational system works, but I believe that if we could change from a mindset of accommodation to a mindset of facilitation, everyone would benefit.