Inclusion ... the Never-ending Discussion, but Where is the Real Conversation?

I attended a "training session" discussing the potential for allowing for increased inclusion in classrooms, in this case, providing ABA (applied behavioral analysis) services to autistic students in inclusion classrooms.  There was an interesting mix of people - lawyers, parents, advocates.  I'm not a strong advocate of inclusion - I certainly think it's a great goal for many children, but I don't think it's right for everyone.  I think it's a mistake to think that there's anything that's right for everyone, and the concept that the goal in education should be that everyone, no matter what, should be in the same setting ... it's wrong.

I was very put off by the attitude of the presenter.  She kept asking questions as if she was asking questions, but she thought they were "to make people think about their prejudices."  It never occurred to her that she was operating from her own set of prejudices.  She asked whether there was any service that could not be provided within the mainstream class.  I raised my hand and gave an example:  the autism support that is provided in a local elementary school includes a curriculum that addresses social thinking.  It is a curriculum that is provided to only the kids who need it, i.e. the ASD kids.  "Well, couldn't all the kids get it?"  "Sure, but they'd need 20 of the person who provides it, instead of one.  That's an expense that's not reasonable."  "Well, couldn't they train the classroom teacher to do it?"  "No."  She didn't like my answer.  This presenter's way of dealing with everything was to minimize the skill of the provider of the service, to minimize the challenges of the students involved, and to behave as if anyone could do it.  "It isn't rocket science," she said several times, about ABA.  She's right, it isn't rocket science.  But that doesn't mean that everyone is well-suited to doing it.  It also doesn't mean that everyone has the knack for doing it.  I didn't even have time to get into the fact that the way that ASD children learn these things is SO different from how NT kids learn it, that to teach it together would defy the very reason for having the curriculum for the ASD kids in the first place!

There was discussion about the "odd" phenomenon of concentrating children with certain disabilities in particular schools within a district.  I don't understand why this is odd.  People act like all kids with special needs can be taught with the same techniques.  This is not true.  Why would we NOT want teachers who are particularly skilled and experienced with certain populations to teach them?  Why would we want what this presenter kept referring to as "natural proportions?"  We don't look for doctors who have "natural proportions" of patients with rare disorders!  If someone has a rare disorder, they look for a specialist in that field.  When someone has a complex legal matter, one does not go to a general practitioner; nor does one go to a trusts and estates attorney if one has a torts case - even though the T&E attorney can learn the rules of evidence!  If someone has a rare learning disorder, why should they not have a teacher who is specialized in that specific area?

When I spoke to the presenter during the break, and told her of my experience with children who had been placed in private schools, and whose experience was that it was only in those private schools that they felt like they were actually included, she said she'd heard that from kids before ... yet, she was dismissive of the perspective.  How can we not pay attention to the kids who we are supposedly advocating for, if we say we are advocating on their behalf, for their benefit, and they are telling us that they feel excluded in the general education environment, and they do not feel stigmatized or otherwise "excluded" by being in a specialized school?  If they tell us that being with other students "like themselves," they find, for the first time, a sense of community, how can we not honor that?

One thing that occurred to me, after the training, and after my conversation with the presenter, was that the people who are coming up with some of these concepts must not be members of a minority group, of any kind.  How could anyone else come up with the idea of "natural proportions."  People from minority groups tend to congregate in particular areas so that they can form communities of "their own" within the larger community.  That's why there are "Little Italies" and "Chinatowns" and neighborhoods with various other ethnic identities.  If a particular ethnicity constitutes 1% of the national population, it is the rare member of that ethnic group who chooses to live in an area where they are that proportion of the population.  There is comfort in community.  If people look at any of the online communities, it is clear that this is true for many people with disabilities as well.  For many people with autism, finding out that "autism" is what explains so much of what has been puzzling about them (or their world) is a huge relief, and finding others who share this label is wonderful.

Maintaining "natural proportions" in the face of this, to me, makes no sense.  Why should a child with Asperger's be expected to never meet another child of about his age in school, who shares a similar diagnosis, because with a 1 in 100 ASD diagnosis level, and the functioning levels being widely varied, the chances of having a true peer is minimal.  That is not fair to the children, the teachers, or the support staff.  

So much needs to be weighed, but it seems like those who advocate for inclusion are not listening to any of the reasons why sometimes, sometimes, there are valid considerations for thinking beyond pure, total inclusion as the "gold standard."