You can't possibly mean THAT kid...

“You can’t possibly mean THAT kid?!”

“What could THAT student with autism get out of my class?”

“Wouldn’t THAT student with Down Syndrome be better off learning functional skills?”

“Isn’t THAT student with an emotional disability going to be a distraction to everyone else?”

These are the types of questions that commonly surround the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education.  While school district mission statements often boast the philosophy of, “All children can learn,” a closer look at the instructional practices for students with disabilities reveal that often, the term all doesn’t really mean ALL.

I can think of countless times throughout my career when I have been challenged to defend the inclusion for students with disabilities.  One of the first moments came when I was a young special education teacher.  

When meeting with my teacher mentor, I enthusiastically shared the progress of Shanna, a fifth grade student with autism who had recently begun participating in a general education science class. I shared my excitement that Shanna, who had never before been included in general education, correctly answered a question about a geological formation called moraine.

“Moraine?” scoffed my colleague, “What does Shanna need to learn about moraine for anyway?”  As an idealistic 20-something teacher, I didn’t have a response for my “mentor” at the time.  But I do now…

Students with disabilities are held to a standard to which no other students are held.  Students like Shanna must “prove” that they are worthy of learning material that is unquestionably taught to everyone else.  Why does Shanna need to learn about moraine?  Because she CAN.  

Far too often, students with disabilities are denied access to the curriculum because of assumptions - assumptions that they cannot learn, assumptions that the material in question will not be of particular value to them, or assumptions that the content will not help them with their future life plans.  The flaw in these arguments is evident when one considers their own schooling.

When I look back on my educational career, I can think of endless topics and subjects for which there is no obvious use in my everyday life…

Chemistry?  I’m not a scientist.

French?  “Bonjour” is about all I remember at this point.

Calculus?  You’re joking, right?

Yet, despite not using the content of these subjects on a daily basis, there are many valuable skills I gained from my enrollment in these classes…skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, exposure to another culture, and collaboration with my peers, to name a few.  School is more than just the curriculum.

We must reject arguments that the curriculum holds little to no value for students with disabilities, just as we would reject those contentions for other students.  Who are we, as educators, to say what a student is capable of learning, achieving, or being?  Our job is to teach a rich and challenging curriculum to ALL students, not to judge who is or is not worthy of learning it.

So when asked, “You can’t possibly mean THAT student?” my answer is yes…

YES! I DO mean THAT student with autism.

YES! I DO mean THAT student with Down Syndrome.

YES! I DO mean THAT student with an emotional disability.

I mean ALL students.  My belief that all children can learn is more than just a slogan on a website.  Is yours?