Patrick Lencioni's' book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable, is an artfully crafted book designed to showcase his theory of what makes a team work well. The book has two main parts: the first part is a fictional story of a dysfunctional team who learns to work better together and the second part explicitly details the steps and strategies used to achieve that goal.
The storytelling beginning is remarkably effective. It is easy to read and connect with- a storytelling must. Kathryn, our new CEO heroine, pulls her team together, shows them how their lack of teamwork interferes with their lack of business productivity and the business moves on to success.
The centerpiece of the story is that there are five things teams do that prevent their success. Mr. Lencioni imagines these as stacks in a pyramid. When any lower level is impaired, the rest of the pyramid is on shaky ground. At the base of the stack is absence of trust which as seen as a need for invulnerability. Next comes fear of conflict as seen as artificial harmony- agreeing on the surface and not being able to support the decision in private, undermining it outside of the boardroom. Third is a lack of commitment as seen in ambiguity. Fourth is avoidance of accountability as seen in low standards. At the pinnacle is inattention to results as seen in individual focus on status and ego as opposed to team goal achievement.
This series makes intuitive sense, most teams would say they do not fall prey to any of them and most teams are wrong. When think of my particular team, I will show you. Our current departmental leader came in and put together a minute to win it contest to try and build teamwork. Some people enjoyed it. Others tolerated it. I, often not a good team player (an area of needed improvement), demonstrated my dismay at being asked to play at nonsense while I had all kinds of work to do. Teambuilding during the event seemed to consist of dreading the next activity collectively. I did not trust or care about the results. I do not trust my team, I never see them work. When I get to know individual members, I begin to see them and their skills; this builds trust. For me, this is not a group process, but a one-on-one activity. The author recommends avoiding these physical activities as ways to build teams because they do not work.
In education and among women there is often a fear of conflict. As someone who grew up with seven siblings in a loud house, I am very comfortable with conflict. Loud conflict. I know that there a rules about conflict- focus on the single issue at hand, no name calling or personal attacks, etc. I am willing to play devil's advocate for the sake of disagreement. I was at a workshop once where the presenter focused on the idea that consensus in all things is essential. I beg to differ. There are many things we will never agree on. Management must sometimes ignore the ideas of the staff. Parents must ignore the desires of their children. Seatbelts must always be worn. State gatepost tests must be given. I do not care about your personal opinion. When we discuss the issue in an open and frank manner, a decision can be reached. Everyone may not agree with the decision but ultimately they have two team centered choices- support it anyway or leave the organization. Anything else degrades the team.
My husband frequently talks about spirited discussions between him and the CTO of his company that other team members would step back and watch. This was a senior engineer and his boss, discussing deeply technical issues and not agreeing. These discussions, however, helped both of the men grow and understand the issues. The CTO won more often than not, but my husband also was able to win. Sometimes, they walked away agreeing to disagree. Many times decisions were modified to reflect a more thorough understanding of the issues.
If we cannot commit to support the goal, we need to get out. In education that means get out of the district or teaching altogether. That is scary. Unlike many other jobs, teaching is not a portable skill. Once you have too many years in, you are an unlikely hire. Pay is often slashed by switching districts. We can work within the field to disagree- lobby our representatives, attend and speak out at school board meetings, participate in school level decision-making teams. We can do these things while supporting the policy at the classroom level. Undermining the policy, however, erodes the team effort. We cannot avoid speaking up and then fail to support a decision. That is unfair to everyone. We cannot avoid making a decision because someone's feelings may be hurt.
Avoidance of accountability is one that I find particularly interesting. About twenty years ago I was at a staff meeting as a very junior member. We were being asked to look at data for our students and manually desegregate it. I piped up with a question, "If we had printouts of the data, why were being asked to desegregate the data manually, wouldn't it make more sense to do it with a computer?" I got a "computers can't do it" response and that was it. I knew that I could write a simple program that could do this, so I was not satisfied. Later, someone in a mentoring role to me took me aside and said we should not question the people on this particular committee because they were the school powerbrokers. This incident has always stuck in my craw. Here was a team that absolutely refused to be held accountable for how they used people's time or anything else. I was blackballed as a result of this incident. We need to have high standards and be willing to accept people calling us to account for violating them. Even junior people have good insights. What they lack in experience, they make up for with not being tied to tradition and having fresh insights.
Ultimately what drives a lot of the previous issues is inattention to results. Ego. I cannot be wrong, so you had better shut up. This attitude is pervasive in schools and other businesses as well. If it is all about me, it cannot be about doing a good job. We need to individually address this idea, not just take but encourage constructive feedback, and learn that it is never to late to learn something new.
This book masterfully shows how to be a better team. It takes work, but it can be done. Further, becoming a better team results in achieving better results. It maximizes ideas and potential.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The Common Core: Reading standards in grades 6-12
Maureen McLaughlin and Brenda J. Overturf's book, The Common Core: Teaching Students in Grades 6-12 to Meet the Reading Standards, was a text that I found tediously repetitive. Part two is about teaching the common core standards for reading. It includes a chapter for each anchor standard. Each of these chapters includes an explanation of each anchor standard. It looks at the literature, informational texts, history/social studies and science and technology. If you want to read the standards horizontally and vertically, this book includes them in both orientations. They then approach how to teach the standard, 21st century skill applications of the standard, integrating the stand with other ELA standards, a section on the common core in action ad references. Unfortunately there are sections that are repeated verbatim in each chapter. I would like to think that professionals do not need that level of reinforcement.
They offer some fantastic examples of graphic organizers that are completed. page 172, for example offers a "Determining an Author's Purpose Organizer." It has a space for central idea, facts and language choices that support those facts. Unfortunately you need to buy another book or recreate them to get blank copies. They have rough outlines of lesson sets to teach the information but this is often sketchy and general. More specific lesson details would be helpful in demonstrating what the "action" would look like. The way it is written lacks any specificity.
The book left me feeling incomplete. Perhaps it would be useful if someone read pieces as opposed to the entire book.
They offer some fantastic examples of graphic organizers that are completed. page 172, for example offers a "Determining an Author's Purpose Organizer." It has a space for central idea, facts and language choices that support those facts. Unfortunately you need to buy another book or recreate them to get blank copies. They have rough outlines of lesson sets to teach the information but this is often sketchy and general. More specific lesson details would be helpful in demonstrating what the "action" would look like. The way it is written lacks any specificity.
The book left me feeling incomplete. Perhaps it would be useful if someone read pieces as opposed to the entire book.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
The Common Core: Teaching Students in gr. 6-12 to meet the reading standards- close reading
Close reading is a term referred once in the CCSS but has received a huge amount of interest as a result of the roll out of the standards. The problem that authors Maureen McLaughlin and Brenda J. Overturf note in their book, The Common Core: Teaching Students in Grades 6-12 to Meet the Reading Standards, is that there is no agreed upon definition of what close reading is. They point out in numerous places this discrepancy.
The fact that multiple interpretations exists presents challenges when trying to understand what we are talking about. Is close reading analysis or comprehension? seems to be the foundation of the debate, but it can be further complicated by the idea that it is a unified strategy to approach reading tasks.
In my children's schools they seem to approach close reading as a strategy involving rereading and annotating texts. My daughter has found this particularly infuriating since the annotation of a short work, well below her significantly above grade level reading, involving concepts that she readily understands is unnecessary. Afterall who annotates Pat the Bunny by Dorothy Kunhardt? For her, rereading and making notes is a tedious process that does little to enhance comprehension or enable literary analysis. For other students, however, for whom a significant portion of the vocabulary is poorly or not understood, multiple readings and question marks are not helpful. If a student must pause multiple times in a sentence to look up a word, he is not likely to persevere at the task, even if the reading is in an electronic form and hyperlinks are available to assist in word comprehension.
The idea of a scaffold of skills to understand and interpret readings is appealing, but the often poorly undifferentiated curriculum demanding every child read the same passage is somewhat of a mockery of the idea of challenging texts. You cannot teach a scaffold of skills effectively if some students never advance beyond handholding and some never encounter a difficulty. Approaching the curriculum to effectively teach reading for deep comprehension seems to imply at some level that good strategy instruction occur- that requires instruction on material at an independent level and moving to progressively more challenging material. If we want to teach students to read beyond their grade level, something that appears to be a goal in NY (look at our modules and tests that utilize readings far outside of what good sense tells us is appropriate for children at a particular age), we need to establish a progression that takes them through reading from the easy to the challenging.
I have read some authors reflect that they do not want people to look too deeply into their work because they find things that were not there. Themes that the author did not intend to explore, hidden messages that "closely reading" can reveal. This is, in fact, how my tongue in cheek high school essay about Ethan Frome and the relationship between Zeena and the cat came up. There is some sense of preposterousness and hubris in thinking that we can uncover these ideas, many of which were unintended. We say that statistics can prove anything. Are we going to a place where deep and close enough reading can as well?
If we want to have a discussion about the standards, we need to first agree on what this term "close reading," referred to in the first reading standard, means. We need to agree that not all material should be read closely and that not all reading, even in English class, should be close. We need to understand that just because a student is at a particular grade level, a particular book or passage is challenging- it could be anywhere from impossible to child's play.
- Aspen Institute: it involves investigation of a short piece with multiple readings over a period of time where students are guided to "deeply analyze and appreciate various aspects of the text..." (p 78). It is an instructional strategy using direct instruction techniques to read increasingly "complex texts and apply newly acquired knowledge" (p. 78)
- ACT: literary analysis (p. 55). Interpret text using literary devices and aspects such as theme and figurative language or identify claims and analyze support (p. 78)
- Common Core- "read for deep comprehension;" to determine what the text explicitly reveals (p. 78)
- Fisher and Frey- an aspect of reader response to the text (p. 56)
- Pearson- utilize prior knowledge to support it, but gives respect to the text rather than the author, historical background, or personal disposition (p. 56-7)
- Calfee- not the "keystone" of literacy, but a piece of it (p. 57)
- Authors interpretation of the CCSS- both literary analysis and a way to read for enhanced comprehension (p. 57)
The fact that multiple interpretations exists presents challenges when trying to understand what we are talking about. Is close reading analysis or comprehension? seems to be the foundation of the debate, but it can be further complicated by the idea that it is a unified strategy to approach reading tasks.
In my children's schools they seem to approach close reading as a strategy involving rereading and annotating texts. My daughter has found this particularly infuriating since the annotation of a short work, well below her significantly above grade level reading, involving concepts that she readily understands is unnecessary. Afterall who annotates Pat the Bunny by Dorothy Kunhardt? For her, rereading and making notes is a tedious process that does little to enhance comprehension or enable literary analysis. For other students, however, for whom a significant portion of the vocabulary is poorly or not understood, multiple readings and question marks are not helpful. If a student must pause multiple times in a sentence to look up a word, he is not likely to persevere at the task, even if the reading is in an electronic form and hyperlinks are available to assist in word comprehension.
The idea of a scaffold of skills to understand and interpret readings is appealing, but the often poorly undifferentiated curriculum demanding every child read the same passage is somewhat of a mockery of the idea of challenging texts. You cannot teach a scaffold of skills effectively if some students never advance beyond handholding and some never encounter a difficulty. Approaching the curriculum to effectively teach reading for deep comprehension seems to imply at some level that good strategy instruction occur- that requires instruction on material at an independent level and moving to progressively more challenging material. If we want to teach students to read beyond their grade level, something that appears to be a goal in NY (look at our modules and tests that utilize readings far outside of what good sense tells us is appropriate for children at a particular age), we need to establish a progression that takes them through reading from the easy to the challenging.
I have read some authors reflect that they do not want people to look too deeply into their work because they find things that were not there. Themes that the author did not intend to explore, hidden messages that "closely reading" can reveal. This is, in fact, how my tongue in cheek high school essay about Ethan Frome and the relationship between Zeena and the cat came up. There is some sense of preposterousness and hubris in thinking that we can uncover these ideas, many of which were unintended. We say that statistics can prove anything. Are we going to a place where deep and close enough reading can as well?
If we want to have a discussion about the standards, we need to first agree on what this term "close reading," referred to in the first reading standard, means. We need to agree that not all material should be read closely and that not all reading, even in English class, should be close. We need to understand that just because a student is at a particular grade level, a particular book or passage is challenging- it could be anywhere from impossible to child's play.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Wasting Minds
Ronald A. Wolk was a long time editor of Education Week and has long been involved in educational issues. His 2011 book Wasting Minds: Why our Education System is Failing and What We Can Do About It, discusses how we might change the education system to better meet the needs of our children. It is reminiscent of C. Schwahn and B. McGarvey's Inevitable: Mass Customized Learning: Learning in the Age of Empowerment. Both authors see our technology as being capable of being the driving force behind reenvisioning schools. Both see our current educational system as being so far from meeting the needs of our students and society as needing a complete redo.
Many educational professionals I have spoken with will give lip service to the idea that they feel all students should have Individual Educational Plans, like we do for students with special needs. They advocate differentiation to meet the needs of students in the classroom. That being said, I have yet to see differentiation actually work for either my gifted or my Aspie children. Teachers may say yes they will. The special education teachers wanted what was best and occasionally would proactively alter an assignment to meet the needs of my son, but rarely was anything done on a consistent basis. With a great deal of prodding they provided acceleration for my daughter, but separate assignments- not so much. The current age of CCSS testing has only made matters worse.
I agree with both sets of authors that schools are not going to evolve to provide individualization. We need a do over. We need an Apple compared with an Univax technology. While charter and laboratory schools were established to try out new ideas, most are now just variations of what is being done in the private sector. Some programs exist like the Met schools use a more different plan than most. Some innovative new constructions of schools have been built around technology access. Most "new" programs are not radical departures from the current plan.
In order to do this we need to create a parallel program that demonstrates the feasibility and success of a radically different program. There might be some increased support for such an idea at a time when opt-out of testing has created a national scandal. I am not necessarily talking about charters as they are used today, but charters of the past- innovative places to try out ideas. We need to see about using technology to meet individual needs. We need to ignore the idea of age-based grading and somehow figure out how to establish flexible multiage grouping. Think one room school houses on steroids of technology.
I think it can be done. Clearly others agree that it can be done. The question is do we have the social-political will to attempt the new build of our educational system.
Many educational professionals I have spoken with will give lip service to the idea that they feel all students should have Individual Educational Plans, like we do for students with special needs. They advocate differentiation to meet the needs of students in the classroom. That being said, I have yet to see differentiation actually work for either my gifted or my Aspie children. Teachers may say yes they will. The special education teachers wanted what was best and occasionally would proactively alter an assignment to meet the needs of my son, but rarely was anything done on a consistent basis. With a great deal of prodding they provided acceleration for my daughter, but separate assignments- not so much. The current age of CCSS testing has only made matters worse.
I agree with both sets of authors that schools are not going to evolve to provide individualization. We need a do over. We need an Apple compared with an Univax technology. While charter and laboratory schools were established to try out new ideas, most are now just variations of what is being done in the private sector. Some programs exist like the Met schools use a more different plan than most. Some innovative new constructions of schools have been built around technology access. Most "new" programs are not radical departures from the current plan.
In order to do this we need to create a parallel program that demonstrates the feasibility and success of a radically different program. There might be some increased support for such an idea at a time when opt-out of testing has created a national scandal. I am not necessarily talking about charters as they are used today, but charters of the past- innovative places to try out ideas. We need to see about using technology to meet individual needs. We need to ignore the idea of age-based grading and somehow figure out how to establish flexible multiage grouping. Think one room school houses on steroids of technology.
I think it can be done. Clearly others agree that it can be done. The question is do we have the social-political will to attempt the new build of our educational system.
Friday, April 17, 2015
The Illusion of Full Inclusion
In some ways The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon, Second Edition edited by James M. Kaufman and Daniel P. Hallahan was an easy book for me to read. I knew when I picked up this book of essays that I agreed with the major thrust- that there needs to be a continuum of services available to meet the needs of children. That any single choice program, such as inclusion, is not right for all. That parents, teachers, other professionals and sometimes even the students need to be involved in placement decisions. This book upholds those views in spades.
My difficulty with the book was its extremely repetitive nature. The first part includes 8 chapters on the historical context of inclusion. If anyone is interested in this area, select any one of the chapters and you will have a comprehensive explanation of the background. The second part focuses on policy analyses, commentaries and research. Many of these 8 chapters do a quick revisit of the history before launching into a description of the concept that full inclusion rarely means full inclusion for the most severe, especially emotional disabled, students; how there exists a dearth of research supporting full inclusion; and how teachers are not prepared to tackle the influx of special education students into their classes. The third part of the book is the least repetitive- disability specific issues. There are parent and professional writings about the need for a special classes and special schools, the gist being that special needs require special education.
If someone is looking to justify a special class placement, this book provides lots of ammo, but one need not read the whole thing to get what is needed. Cherry pick the essays based on personal interest, focusing on one per section. That takes the 449 page book down to a rational size.
If someone is a true proponent of full inclusion, this book will be an uncomfortable read. It confronts the lack of research, the divergence of special and general education, and addresses issues of social equity. It attacks the concept that place is the determining factor in a placement being least restrictive. These ideas will be profoundly challenging and may be discarded outright. I would challenge people to read some of the essays with an open mind to see if they can understand why parents fight to keep their special schools open such as the one told here in Tennessee and here in California. We need to recognize that one option is not right for all and that these complex decisions should not be made by politicians or school boards, but by people in the front line who are most influenced- parents and students and teachers.
My difficulty with the book was its extremely repetitive nature. The first part includes 8 chapters on the historical context of inclusion. If anyone is interested in this area, select any one of the chapters and you will have a comprehensive explanation of the background. The second part focuses on policy analyses, commentaries and research. Many of these 8 chapters do a quick revisit of the history before launching into a description of the concept that full inclusion rarely means full inclusion for the most severe, especially emotional disabled, students; how there exists a dearth of research supporting full inclusion; and how teachers are not prepared to tackle the influx of special education students into their classes. The third part of the book is the least repetitive- disability specific issues. There are parent and professional writings about the need for a special classes and special schools, the gist being that special needs require special education.
If someone is looking to justify a special class placement, this book provides lots of ammo, but one need not read the whole thing to get what is needed. Cherry pick the essays based on personal interest, focusing on one per section. That takes the 449 page book down to a rational size.
If someone is a true proponent of full inclusion, this book will be an uncomfortable read. It confronts the lack of research, the divergence of special and general education, and addresses issues of social equity. It attacks the concept that place is the determining factor in a placement being least restrictive. These ideas will be profoundly challenging and may be discarded outright. I would challenge people to read some of the essays with an open mind to see if they can understand why parents fight to keep their special schools open such as the one told here in Tennessee and here in California. We need to recognize that one option is not right for all and that these complex decisions should not be made by politicians or school boards, but by people in the front line who are most influenced- parents and students and teachers.
Equity literacy
The Declaration of Independence includes an often misunderstood phrase, "all men are created equal,... with certain inalienable Rights... Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Some interpret this statement to mean that all men are entitled to equal outcomes. This is one defense of socialism, but it was not Thomas Jefferson thought when he penned these famous words. He thought all men should have equal opportunity. Personal abilities, drives, and education would play an important role in determining how successful a person was. He was a great defender farmers and held much scorn for big business. A farmer who worked hard, stayed on top of the latest in agricultural improvements and personal development was more likely to be successful than the one who did not put forth the effort. Jefferson also knew there were no guarantees. Jefferson saw the corrupting power of big business. He was, however, one of the wealthy farmers of the day and saw nothing wrong with amassing personal wealth.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a small but great thing. We are entitled to not worry that our life will be capriciously eliminated, to freedom to pursue our religion and speak our mind, and to try to find happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. We are not guaranteed happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
Paul C. Gorski and Katy Swalwell in the Educational Leadership March of 2015 article, Equity Literacy for All, see a different interpretation of the ideals of our democratic state. Their article begins with a discussion of multiculturalism where a student declared, "There's racism at this school, and nobody's doing anything about it!" (p. 34). This is a sad but all too often true statement about society in general and many schools in specific. The authors then slowly incorporate ideas of sexism, homophobia and class inequality into the discussion of how to build equity into schools.
Dictionary.com states that equality is "the state of being equal especially in status, rights and opportunities" and equity as "the quality of being fair and impartial." There is a subtle difference between equality and equity that seems to have eluded the authors. Equal and fair are not the same thing. While I cannot argue against the idea that "heart of a curriculum that is meaningfully multicultural lie principles of equity and social justice- purposeful attention to issues like racism, homophobia, sexism," I do find fault when they tag on "economic inequality" (p. 36) to the list. They seem to have defined social justice as economic equality. They argue that we cannot prepare youth for participation in democracy without attention to "formidable barriers to an authentic democracy" which they have defined as including "poverty and sexism" (p. 39). They argue that the teacher's goal is for the "students to understand the issues involved and commit to working toward a society with less economic inequality (p. 39). Somehow they have equated equality with equity and the former as a requirement for a democratic state. Economic equality is necessary for a socialist state not a democratic state. People paying attention to sexism, racism and homophobia are paying attention to the social status we currently equate with the governmental structure of democracy where, to paraphrase Lincoln, we do not trample the rights of the minority under the will of the majority.
We want students to have equal opportunity to achieve great things, something a quality education facilitates, and we want them to be compassionate with people who have less or are hurting, but I do not believe that we want them to all have equal outcomes- we need plumbers and engineers, maids and teachers, doctors and police men. Truly equal would have them all earn the same amount, incur the same amount of debt for training and work the same hours. I know few teachers who want to work 48 weeks a year (goodbye summer break) and few people who think their neurosurgeon should not be paid more than their maid.
We serve students better when we give them the tools to rise above poverty and to reach out to people of different classes, sexes and sexual preferences then when we try to eliminate the differences that create these preferences. Education that truly provides a foundation, health care that enables people to be healthy, and housing that keeps everyone warm and safe and dry are the background. We do not want everyone to live in the same 1200 square foot ranch or apartment. We want them to have choices. When we ensure the foundation, we ensure opportunity. That is what our founding fathers wanted for our democracy.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a small but great thing. We are entitled to not worry that our life will be capriciously eliminated, to freedom to pursue our religion and speak our mind, and to try to find happiness so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. We are not guaranteed happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.
Paul C. Gorski and Katy Swalwell in the Educational Leadership March of 2015 article, Equity Literacy for All, see a different interpretation of the ideals of our democratic state. Their article begins with a discussion of multiculturalism where a student declared, "There's racism at this school, and nobody's doing anything about it!" (p. 34). This is a sad but all too often true statement about society in general and many schools in specific. The authors then slowly incorporate ideas of sexism, homophobia and class inequality into the discussion of how to build equity into schools.
Dictionary.com states that equality is "the state of being equal especially in status, rights and opportunities" and equity as "the quality of being fair and impartial." There is a subtle difference between equality and equity that seems to have eluded the authors. Equal and fair are not the same thing. While I cannot argue against the idea that "heart of a curriculum that is meaningfully multicultural lie principles of equity and social justice- purposeful attention to issues like racism, homophobia, sexism," I do find fault when they tag on "economic inequality" (p. 36) to the list. They seem to have defined social justice as economic equality. They argue that we cannot prepare youth for participation in democracy without attention to "formidable barriers to an authentic democracy" which they have defined as including "poverty and sexism" (p. 39). They argue that the teacher's goal is for the "students to understand the issues involved and commit to working toward a society with less economic inequality (p. 39). Somehow they have equated equality with equity and the former as a requirement for a democratic state. Economic equality is necessary for a socialist state not a democratic state. People paying attention to sexism, racism and homophobia are paying attention to the social status we currently equate with the governmental structure of democracy where, to paraphrase Lincoln, we do not trample the rights of the minority under the will of the majority.
We want students to have equal opportunity to achieve great things, something a quality education facilitates, and we want them to be compassionate with people who have less or are hurting, but I do not believe that we want them to all have equal outcomes- we need plumbers and engineers, maids and teachers, doctors and police men. Truly equal would have them all earn the same amount, incur the same amount of debt for training and work the same hours. I know few teachers who want to work 48 weeks a year (goodbye summer break) and few people who think their neurosurgeon should not be paid more than their maid.
We serve students better when we give them the tools to rise above poverty and to reach out to people of different classes, sexes and sexual preferences then when we try to eliminate the differences that create these preferences. Education that truly provides a foundation, health care that enables people to be healthy, and housing that keeps everyone warm and safe and dry are the background. We do not want everyone to live in the same 1200 square foot ranch or apartment. We want them to have choices. When we ensure the foundation, we ensure opportunity. That is what our founding fathers wanted for our democracy.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The illusion of full Inclusion Kavale and Forness
The Illusion of Full Inclusion is a series of essays about inclusion edited by James M. Kauffman and Daniel P. Hallahan. In it, Kenneth A. Kavale and Steven R. Forness wrote History, Rhetoric and Reality: Analysis of the Inclusion Debate. As I have read this book one rationale for full inclusion has appeared over and over- improving social acceptance of people with disabilities. The authors paraphrase a great deal of research saying that "findings generally revealed a tendency toward more tolerance with increased contact" (p. 247). We hear many heartwarming stories about people with disabilities achieving social heights such as prom king or a cheerleader prom queen. These stories hit the news with splash and we can say, "Look at what good inclusion has done for these wonderful kids." We are depressed when stories about bullying of similar students hit the news. When the boy with autism invites his whole class to his birthday and no one shows up, we celebrate the community efforts to try and rectify the wrong. Unfortunately as the authors point out, research suggests that "simple contact with students with disabilities does not in itself result in more favorable attitudes and improved social acceptance" (p. 254).
Peers may tolerate the student with disabilities. They may countenance the idiosyncrasies that a child may have, but that does not mean they will accept him. My experience with my son bears this out. He was fully included for most of his education. Everyone in school knew him. They would say hi and he sometimes responded. Some would look out for him, let him sit with them for lunch and not tease him. No one invited him to a play date or birthday party. He never received a phone call from a peer. My son's teachers insisted he had many friends at school, but he could not name most of his classmates. There were other students with disabilities who were not tolerated by their peers. They were bullied, teased and left out. Merely being in the classroom and not treated badly does not mean you have friends.
Justifying inclusion on the basis of social acceptance is ridiculous. This is especially true of students who exhibit negative and/or socially unacceptable behavior. If you think back to your childhood, you will remember knowing who were the class brains and the class dunces. We did not have formal labels for these kids, but we know who was strong and who was weak at all manner of activities. To think that kids will not discern differences because they are in the same room is also misguided. Kids will know. We need to teach them that those differences are part of the human condition. That people have different strengths and weaknesses. That humans are valuable for the sake of being human. We can teach how to treat people, but tolerance should not be mistaken for friendship.
Yes, some students with disabilities will be friends of peers without disabilities, but just putting them in the same room will not make it so. We can facilitate acceptance and friendship but cannot require it. We cannot say that one setting is right for all people anymore than we can say that we will be friends with everyone we work with. Kavale and Forness have it right that any program that puts all students in one setting is misguided. These decisions need to be made on a case by case basis with input from parents, school staff and children. We need to not present parents with a Pollyannish view of inclusion. There are costs and benefits to it. Some students will thrive around typical peers, others will not. Peers may not become friends with those with disabilities. Some will. Some will see these students with differences as targets. Some will defend them. Others will simply ignore them.
Peers may tolerate the student with disabilities. They may countenance the idiosyncrasies that a child may have, but that does not mean they will accept him. My experience with my son bears this out. He was fully included for most of his education. Everyone in school knew him. They would say hi and he sometimes responded. Some would look out for him, let him sit with them for lunch and not tease him. No one invited him to a play date or birthday party. He never received a phone call from a peer. My son's teachers insisted he had many friends at school, but he could not name most of his classmates. There were other students with disabilities who were not tolerated by their peers. They were bullied, teased and left out. Merely being in the classroom and not treated badly does not mean you have friends.
Justifying inclusion on the basis of social acceptance is ridiculous. This is especially true of students who exhibit negative and/or socially unacceptable behavior. If you think back to your childhood, you will remember knowing who were the class brains and the class dunces. We did not have formal labels for these kids, but we know who was strong and who was weak at all manner of activities. To think that kids will not discern differences because they are in the same room is also misguided. Kids will know. We need to teach them that those differences are part of the human condition. That people have different strengths and weaknesses. That humans are valuable for the sake of being human. We can teach how to treat people, but tolerance should not be mistaken for friendship.
Yes, some students with disabilities will be friends of peers without disabilities, but just putting them in the same room will not make it so. We can facilitate acceptance and friendship but cannot require it. We cannot say that one setting is right for all people anymore than we can say that we will be friends with everyone we work with. Kavale and Forness have it right that any program that puts all students in one setting is misguided. These decisions need to be made on a case by case basis with input from parents, school staff and children. We need to not present parents with a Pollyannish view of inclusion. There are costs and benefits to it. Some students will thrive around typical peers, others will not. Peers may not become friends with those with disabilities. Some will. Some will see these students with differences as targets. Some will defend them. Others will simply ignore them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)