The benefits of disability-desegregation for ALL students

[capri0mni]

(I'd ordinarily post this behind my "Disability Discussions" access filter, but I'm in a "Shameless Agitator" mood, and want this to be publicly available to search engines)

I first posted this video almost three months ago (July 31), with no other comment than:

"This man is saying all the things I've been [saying] about why "C.P. = 'Retardation'" (unfortunate term still common in medical contexts) is Bullsh--

But because he's the "normal" parent, people believe him. Whenever I've said this, it must be that my C.P. "warps" my perceptions...

"Disabling segregation: Dan Habib at TEDxAmoskeagMillyard" (Watch on YouTube)

---

I left it there, because it was the end of a long, hot, day. I had neither time nor energy to unpack my reactions, and type them up. But summer's passed, and today is still young. So I'm finishing what I started.

The video is roughly 18 minutes long, and I encourage you to watch the whole thing. But if you can't, I want to focus on these two points that Dan Habib made in this speech:

First, at around the ten minute mark:

(Quote)

56% of kids in this country with intellectual and developmental disabilities spend their entire day in self-contained, seprate settings just for kids with disabilities ... whether it's classes or separate schools. Even though we know ... and all the research says ... that that is not going to yield better outcomes for them. Advocate for inclusion. Advocate of inclusive education.

(Unquote)

I can't help but wonder how much of a link there is behind this national statistic and another that I've seen cited around the Web (often verbatim, so I suspect writers of Websites are "copy-and-pasting" each other) that 'between 30% and 50% of children have some level of mental retardation or seizure disorder.' (also note that the presence of intellectual disability and of seizures are often independent of each other, so I find it troubling that the two conditions are lumped together in this way).

Second, at around the eleven minute mark:

(Quote)

I've come to -- to believe that maybe it's really not about [my son and students like him] . . . Maybe it's actually about the other kids. Maybe we need to show that inclusion benefits typical kids without disabilities as much -- or more -- than they benefit [disabled kids].

The truth is that there are all these research studies that are being done at universities that show academic benefits for typical kids who are learning in inclusive settings. And there's one particular study that was done at Vanderbilt where they did two groups of kids they studied. One group were in an inclusive environment alongside their peers with disabilities. The group that worked alongside their peers with disabilites had an average of a 15 point increase in their academic achievement. that happened and it was because when you're working collaboratively with a peer ... with a friend ... with somebody who might need a little extra assistance ... or some coaching ... you're much more engaged in the curriculum. You want to understand it. you want to study it.

(Unquote)

On the one hand, this makes me want to pump my fist in the air and say: "[Durn] Right!" Inclusive societies do better by everyone.

On the other hand, this passage also makes me angry. There's the obvious question of: "Why should the lives of "typical" children be worth more effort and care than the atypical -- especially since it's out of the control of the children and their families?"

But also: The way Mr. Habib explains these demonstrably better outcomes has bothered me since I woke up the morning after I posted this. It's an explanation that sounds to my ear very like the medieval Church's endorsement of alms and of begging: Because being able to offer charity is good for the soul. His son is good for his "typical" classmates, because he is in need of their help -- which frames his role in the class as more of a passive, rather than active participant.

So, here, I would like to offer a few alternate explanations for the improved academic outcomes in inclusive classrooms:

1) Disabled students are role models for their more "typical" peers -- they demonstrate the fact that there is more than one way to solve a problem, and overcome a barrier. Disabled students are in a position to teach as well as receive help in learning -- so that their presence helps other students learn whether or not those other students ever become their "buddies," or take a personal interest in helping them out.

2) Schools that strictly segregate students by some arbitrary metric or piece of paperwork in a student's file,* are also likely sending the subliminal message that difference is taboo, and demonstration of weakness will lead to ostracization within a stigmatized social group. Is it any wonder, then, that kids don't do as well in such a learning environment?

3) And finally, a school that embraces a culture of inclusiveness -- from the teachers to the parents to the administrators, and which encourages peer collaboration in a way that Mr. Habib describes -- is more likely to be creative in its teaching methods, and more likely to look for -- and find -- solutions to unanticipated problems.

There! Now I've got that off my chest. I feel (a little bit) better.

---

*The Chesapeake Public School System, for example, mandates that every student who has an Individual Education Plan (an I.E.P) on file, must ride to school on the dedicated "special" bus -- even if the child is perfectly capable of riding a "regular" bus -- so the special ed students are being segregated even outside the school building.

Comments

[spiralsheep]

I can only testify yet again that I went to a primary school with a fully integrated "deaf unit" including some students who were profoundly deaf (and at least one, who had previously been in an abusive home, who was capable of occasionally being so disruptive that he once briefly caused the evacuation of two adjoining classrooms, lol) and it had one of the best educational outcomes within that (large) local education authority for ALL students, probably because the teachers had to be good at their job in flexible ways (as you point out above). I didn't believe then and I don't think now that abused children should be excluded from mainstream schooling. Ditto disabled children (who are generally less disruptive than abused children).

every student who has an Individual Education Plan (an I.E.P) on file, must ride to school on the dedicated "special" bus

That's excessively creepy.

[capri0mni]

That's excessively creepy.

Ain't it just? Especially since "Rides the short bus" is a common USian playground taunt employed by bullies and has been associated with social and physical violence.

I've said before, and I'll say it again, here, that -- especially for disabled kids -- the worst bullying the responsibility of the adults who dream up, and then enforce these policies.

[igenlode]

The group that worked alongside their peers with disabilites had an average of a 15 point increase in their academic achievement. that happened and it was because when you're working collaboratively with a peer ... with a friend ... with somebody who might need a little extra assistance ... or some coaching ... you're much more engaged in the curriculum.

Yes -- basically what he is implying here is that inclusion is 'good' because it makes life *more* difficult for the other children: forces them to work harder...

[capri0mni]

Well, I interpreted that passage as inclusion makes learning more *meaningful* for the other children, because they *want* to help their "special" friend. There's nothing that suggests coercion in this presentation.

And, of course, that gets back to my first alternative explanation: The teachers that welcome the notion of a truly inclusive classroom are also the ones more likely to encourage collaboration among all their students, rather than strict competition. And it could be that children do better in collaborative classrooms than in competitive ones, whether not any one of them has been flagged as needing "Special" services.

[igenlode]

Yes, 'forced' is definitely the wrong word -- and in practice people do certainly learn better through teaching others, because it forces them to organise their own thoughts and digest what they think they know. Like writing revision notes, only a dozen times more challenging :-)

[capri0mni]

Yes. And also, I've found collaborative learning more fun, so I don't get as tired halfway through my study time.

Thoughts

[shiori_makiba]

Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to get the mainstream to do something that is good for the whole community is to emphasize how much good it does THEM.

Never mind that the studies cited in Brown vs Education clearly showed being separated out for any reason has detrimental effect on a child's learning. They know that being separated out isn't a good thing.

Of course, we have a lot of people who don't understand that having a generally educated populace is a beneficial for everyone. So yes, you should pay for good public education* even if you don't have any children.

*Through whether or not current US public education is good is a matter of debate and opinion.

Re: Thoughts

[capri0mni]

Indeed.

I know what I'm about to write sounds like "My oppression is more oppressive than your oppression!" and that's not the case for me or many others, because my minority status as a disabled adult women intersects with a lot of privilege that protects me (White, Anglophone, Christian (on paper], wealthy childhood, etc.).

But over the last six years, I've honestly come to believe that the disabled -- especially disabled children -- are viewed as "incomplete" humans.* And as "creatures" that are not quite human, the idea of integrating them into a mainstream classroom is treated as nonsensical a notion as giving Mary's Little Lamb a desk, notebook, and name tag.

*If you listen to the subtext of the media, you'll notice how the people who become disabled through the side effects of old age, or are disabled veterans of war -- are treated with a modicum of more respect than those who've been disabled all their lives, or become disabled because of illness. The former "sacrificed" part of their humanity for the good of society, but the latter are probably frauds and "benefits scroungers."**

**But if you're denied a seat at the table, you either scrounge or starve, so...