Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Search Results: Thomeczek and Brink Law Firm
Search Results: Thomeczek and Brink Law Firm
Heidi Atkins Lieberman, the former Assistant Commissioner of Special Education for Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, is now working for this firm. They represent school districts in due process hearings.
Heidi Atkins Lieberman, the former Assistant Commissioner of Special Education for Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, is now working for this firm. They represent school districts in due process hearings.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Sherri Tucker's Qualifications For School Board
Lee's Summit R-7 School District: Sherri Tucker's Qualifications For School Board
Read the comments and see how some people feel about our struggles.
Read the comments and see how some people feel about our struggles.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Parents of African American High School Students Angry Over Principal's Letter
Parents of African American High School Students Angry Over Principal's Letter
Last Edited: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 6:31 PM CDT
Created: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 6:31 PM CDT
LEE'S SUMMIT, MO. -- The parents of African-American students at Lee's Summit North High School are upset after they received a letter from the school's principal requesting a meeting to improve test scores. But the letter didn't go to all students with low test scores - it went to all African-American students regardless of their test scores. FOX 4's Rob Low has the report.
Last Edited: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 6:31 PM CDT
Created: Wednesday, 24 Sep 2008, 6:31 PM CDT
LEE'S SUMMIT, MO. -- The parents of African-American students at Lee's Summit North High School are upset after they received a letter from the school's principal requesting a meeting to improve test scores. But the letter didn't go to all students with low test scores - it went to all African-American students regardless of their test scores. FOX 4's Rob Low has the report.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Resignation From SEAP
Sherri R. Tucker
I am formally resigning from the SEAP. I have given this much thought and deliberation. Each year I see more and more of the parent positions being taken by employees of the State and school districts. As the parent of three children that have been left behind I joined the group in hopes of making change. I go to IEP meetings all over the region and see more and more children being left behind and parents that are frustrated and hopeless. I felt that my position on this panel could make a difference. I now know that it can not.
Missouri ranks very high in the use of corporal punishment. There is new legislation being offered that would make that punishment legal for children with disabilities. I feel that Missouri is not meeting the needs of children with disabilities and I am going to use my time to fight for new legislation and reform. Missouri needs to be held accountable for what is happening to our children and that is going to be my new focus.
I have enjoyed being on the panel and I have received a great deal of information on how the system works. I appreciate the opportunity that I have been given to participate. I wish everyone good luck and hope that the panel will begin to look at the dysfunction in Missouri’s special education and find ways to make corrections. There are so many lives at risk and so many futures are being lost.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
"It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home." Carl T. Rowan
Sherri R. Tucker
Cofounder MOAFAA (Missouri Advocates for Families Affected by Autism)
Cofounder Lee's Summit Autism Support Group
autism@kc.rr.com
I am formally resigning from the SEAP. I have given this much thought and deliberation. Each year I see more and more of the parent positions being taken by employees of the State and school districts. As the parent of three children that have been left behind I joined the group in hopes of making change. I go to IEP meetings all over the region and see more and more children being left behind and parents that are frustrated and hopeless. I felt that my position on this panel could make a difference. I now know that it can not.
Missouri ranks very high in the use of corporal punishment. There is new legislation being offered that would make that punishment legal for children with disabilities. I feel that Missouri is not meeting the needs of children with disabilities and I am going to use my time to fight for new legislation and reform. Missouri needs to be held accountable for what is happening to our children and that is going to be my new focus.
I have enjoyed being on the panel and I have received a great deal of information on how the system works. I appreciate the opportunity that I have been given to participate. I wish everyone good luck and hope that the panel will begin to look at the dysfunction in Missouri’s special education and find ways to make corrections. There are so many lives at risk and so many futures are being lost.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
"It is often easier to become outraged by injustice half a world away than by oppression and discrimination half a block from home." Carl T. Rowan
Sherri R. Tucker
Cofounder MOAFAA (Missouri Advocates for Families Affected by Autism)
Cofounder Lee's Summit Autism Support Group
autism@kc.rr.com
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
College: A Total Waste of Time? | BNET
College: A Total Waste of Time? BNET
My autistic son sent this to me. He said that it is crap like this that makes him hate the education system.
My autistic son sent this to me. He said that it is crap like this that makes him hate the education system.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Missouri Law Will Not Allow Civil Suit Of Teachers Or Volunteers
Missouri Law States That Teachers Can't Be Held Civilly Liable For Abuse
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WALLACE (Sponsor), FISHER (125), HUMMEL, FISCHER (107), SHIVELY, CUNNINGHAM, FLANIGAN, THOMSON, SMITH (150), NANCE, COX, RUZICKA, HODGES, SATER, SCAVUZZO, MUNZLINGER, YAEGER, WILSON (130), ROORDA, LAMPE, CORCORAN, SCHAD, HOSKINS (121), AULL, DIECKHAUS, PARSON, KINGERY, LAIR, WETER, McNARY, DUSENBERG, WILSON (119), SWINGER AND LOEHNER (Co-sponsors).
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1543
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
7. All school district personnel responsible for the care and supervision of students are authorized to hold every pupil strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school or on any property of the school, on any school bus going to or returning from school, during school-sponsored activities, or during intermission or recess periods.
8. Teachers and other authorized district personnel in public schools responsible for the care, supervision, and discipline of schoolchildren, including volunteers selected with reasonable care by the school district, shall not be civilly liable when acting in conformity with the established [policy of discipline] policies developed by each board [under this section], including but not limited to policies of student discipline or when reporting to his or her supervisor or other person as mandated by state law acts of school violence or threatened acts of school violence, within the course and scope of the duties of the teacher, authorized district personnel or volunteer, when such individual is acting in conformity with the established policies developed by the board. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a new cause of action against such school district, or to relieve the school district from liability for the negligent acts of such persons.
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES WALLACE (Sponsor), FISHER (125), HUMMEL, FISCHER (107), SHIVELY, CUNNINGHAM, FLANIGAN, THOMSON, SMITH (150), NANCE, COX, RUZICKA, HODGES, SATER, SCAVUZZO, MUNZLINGER, YAEGER, WILSON (130), ROORDA, LAMPE, CORCORAN, SCHAD, HOSKINS (121), AULL, DIECKHAUS, PARSON, KINGERY, LAIR, WETER, McNARY, DUSENBERG, WILSON (119), SWINGER AND LOEHNER (Co-sponsors).
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1543
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
7. All school district personnel responsible for the care and supervision of students are authorized to hold every pupil strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school or on any property of the school, on any school bus going to or returning from school, during school-sponsored activities, or during intermission or recess periods.
8. Teachers and other authorized district personnel in public schools responsible for the care, supervision, and discipline of schoolchildren, including volunteers selected with reasonable care by the school district, shall not be civilly liable when acting in conformity with the established [policy of discipline] policies developed by each board [under this section], including but not limited to policies of student discipline or when reporting to his or her supervisor or other person as mandated by state law acts of school violence or threatened acts of school violence, within the course and scope of the duties of the teacher, authorized district personnel or volunteer, when such individual is acting in conformity with the established policies developed by the board. Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a new cause of action against such school district, or to relieve the school district from liability for the negligent acts of such persons.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Write A Letter To Arne Duncan
Sherri R. Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Arne Duncan
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to you for advice. My child, Jacob Tucker, attended Lee’s Summit High School in the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District. We are in the state of Missouri. He was forced to drop out of school because he was receiving no services and was no longer progressing academically. He required medication to attend school because of the anxiety that attending caused him. He does not require this medication for any other part of his life. Once he was removed from the situation the medication was no longer needed.
The local school district, as well as the state education department, is unresponsive to our needs, and refuses to obey the regulations set down in IDEA. As result, my child, as well as others, are suffering and not receiving FAPE. Child complaints are not sufficiently researched and are almost always found in the favor of the districts. Even when the parent has documentation that the district is out of compliance the State finds in the district’s favor. Due process is out of the question as most parents cannot afford it and rarely prevail. The State and the district are co dysfunctional. Even the Special Education Advisory Panel is not set up in such a manner that it would be parent friendly.
My son has a diagnosis of Kanner’s Syndrome/Early Infantile Autism, Dysgraphia, Inattentive and Impulsive ADHD, and Anxiety Disorder. I requested, and received, an IEE but the district did not discuss it at the follow up meeting and simply stated, “We have all read the IEE.” That was the extent that it was considered.
My son has had an educational diagnosis of Autism since 1998. He had never received any services related to his autism. He has a nonverbal IQ of 123 and the interpersonal skills of a one year old. He received no OT services for his dysgraphia and was in regular education classes all day. He had an IEP, but it did not address his issues and the State and the district refused to allow his evaluation scores to be put in his present level of performance.
They also refused to allow the parent full participation in the IEP meeting. When we complained to the State we were told that parents do not have a right to be an equal partner on the IEP team. I have documentation for all of the claims that I am making and can provide them to you at any time.
I filed an OCR complaint. They found that my son’s IEP was not being implemented, but that it did not materially affect his education.
I would appreciate your guidance in helping me to explain the Federal regulations to the school district in such a way that they will comply with current special education law.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
1200 SE London Way
Lee’s Summit, MO 64081
816-554-3017
autism@kc.rr.com
Arne Duncan
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to you for advice. My child, Jacob Tucker, attended Lee’s Summit High School in the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District. We are in the state of Missouri. He was forced to drop out of school because he was receiving no services and was no longer progressing academically. He required medication to attend school because of the anxiety that attending caused him. He does not require this medication for any other part of his life. Once he was removed from the situation the medication was no longer needed.
The local school district, as well as the state education department, is unresponsive to our needs, and refuses to obey the regulations set down in IDEA. As result, my child, as well as others, are suffering and not receiving FAPE. Child complaints are not sufficiently researched and are almost always found in the favor of the districts. Even when the parent has documentation that the district is out of compliance the State finds in the district’s favor. Due process is out of the question as most parents cannot afford it and rarely prevail. The State and the district are co dysfunctional. Even the Special Education Advisory Panel is not set up in such a manner that it would be parent friendly.
My son has a diagnosis of Kanner’s Syndrome/Early Infantile Autism, Dysgraphia, Inattentive and Impulsive ADHD, and Anxiety Disorder. I requested, and received, an IEE but the district did not discuss it at the follow up meeting and simply stated, “We have all read the IEE.” That was the extent that it was considered.
My son has had an educational diagnosis of Autism since 1998. He had never received any services related to his autism. He has a nonverbal IQ of 123 and the interpersonal skills of a one year old. He received no OT services for his dysgraphia and was in regular education classes all day. He had an IEP, but it did not address his issues and the State and the district refused to allow his evaluation scores to be put in his present level of performance.
They also refused to allow the parent full participation in the IEP meeting. When we complained to the State we were told that parents do not have a right to be an equal partner on the IEP team. I have documentation for all of the claims that I am making and can provide them to you at any time.
I filed an OCR complaint. They found that my son’s IEP was not being implemented, but that it did not materially affect his education.
I would appreciate your guidance in helping me to explain the Federal regulations to the school district in such a way that they will comply with current special education law.
Sincerely,
Sherri R. Tucker
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Story of My Son's Education
I was talking to a friend today and some things came to mind. Many people want to know why I fight with the school district and the State. I have earned quite a reputation as a crazy mom. There are many people that are happy with the education that their children are getting and wonder why I am not. Well, let me explain it to you.
I have known that my son has autism since he was three years old. I lived in a very small town in Illinois with the population of 1,200. I had twin daughters that were 5 years old and were in all day kindergarten. The town was having testing for children 3-5 years of age. I thought it was to see where they were academically and what they needed to work on prior to starting kindergarten. My son was three years old and the only child that I had home during the day. I signed him up for the testing and took him up to the school. I wasn’t sure if he would go through it because he was a screamer. I don’t mean that he screamed every once in awhile. I mean that he screamed 24/7. For the first two and a half years of his life he would sleep for 30 minutes and scream for the next two hours. This went on all of the time. He didn’t speak or even make noises. He never said MaMa or DaDa. He just screamed. When you tried to hold him he would arch his back. He never reached for me and even really acknowledged me. He just screamed. I had asked the pediatrician and he said boys don’t talk as early as girls and some babies cry more than others. So, they took him into another room for awhile and when they brought him back they said that if they felt that he needed to start Early Childhood they would call me within a week. Within three days I received a phone call. They weren’t sure what his issues were, but the district felt that he "wasn't right" and put him into school. They didn't know what the problem was, but they were determined to find out and give the best that they had.
This was a town of 1,200 people. Their resources were very limited. I didn't even know that my child had an issue. I was blind. Something that would affect my judgment for the next ten years.
These wonderful people put my son into a classroom of six students and two teachers. They gave him OT and ST. They worked on his social skills. They worked on any issue that came up. Not because they had to. He didn't even have an IEP yet. They did it because they saw a child that needed help to be successful in life. They treated him like a human being that needed guidance and support. He was not another drain on their budget. They had practically no budget. It didn't matter. HE mattered.
When he was four they did some educational evaluations. This was before the internet. This was before anyone knew anything about autism. They said that his tests came back with some very odd results. They said that he was way at one end of the curve on some things and at the other end of the curve on other things. There was nothing in the middle. They said that he didn’t make eye contact. I had never noticed this. They said that he didn’t play with other children. That he would only parallel play. They said that he used dramatic and constructive play, but not interactive play. He could name colors, count up to 12, and recognized numbers. He could sequence objects by size and understood concept of big. He needed a routine and things had to always be the same and if it was not it would throw him off. He would flap his arms and rock when he became excited. He couldn’t follow simple instructions. He displayed a short attention span. He was very interested in Thomas the Tank Engine and could name every engine, their color, and their number. He could tell the name of a Disney VHS tape just by the font. You could lay out the movies, without the box, and he could name the movie just because of the font. I never even noticed that each movie had a different font. They took all of this information and started reading. They found that he exhibited many language, behavior, and socialization characteristics that may indicate a pervasive developmental disorder. They included: late talking, limited variety of responses, non-use of greetings, lack of conversation, lack of playing with others, limited eye contact, perseverative language, echolalic language, arm flapping, strange attachment to objects, and an ability to repeat video scripts verbatim.
When my son was five we moved back to Kansas City. This is where my husband and I were raised. We carefully called and interviewed every school district on both sides of the state line. We wanted to make sure that Jake would get the best that Kansas City had to offer.
After several phone calls and interviews we chose Lee's Summit. I went and told the personnel here that the district in Illinois felt that Jake wasn't ready for regular kindergarten. They felt that he needed 1 on 1 or small group instruction for at least one more year. It stated it in his IEP. Lee's Summit assured me that they were a big district that could handle all of his needs and issues and that the best thing for Jake was going to kindergarten. Once again, I was blind.
Jake went to Prairie View from kindergarten through sixth grade. He had some amazing teachers there. They were kind, supportive, and made accommodations that his IEP didn't call for. We had no issues there. I truly felt that we had picked the best school district that we could have. I volunteered in his classroom every week for at least 2-3 hours. I helped with the school carnival. I helped with health fair. I wrote to the Kansas City Star and told them what an amazing job they were doing with my son.
I didn't know much about autism and I felt like the district was doing all that Jake needed. Little did I know that when he got into high school my only hope for him would be living in a group home. That is where we are now. On his IEP the district has decided that his transition program would be to live semi-independently.
WHY? Because the district never addressed his autism. They didn't address his dysgraphia. They didn't address his social issues. They didn't address his written language issues. Why didn't they? I didn't demand it. In seventh grade the only goal he had on his IEP was to be able to write a paragraph. This is a child with autism, dysgraphia, and a written language deficit.
I thought that you had to believe in the experts and trust them. That blindness has caused the loss of my son's independence. If I had educated myself and fought for him, he would have a different future. His future was stolen and I stood back and let it happen.
I gave the school district a five year old with potential. They have given back a child that will never leave home. I let them do this to my child. My silence and acceptance granted them permission to destroy my son's future. He could have been an independent taxpaying citizen. Now he will be a burden on tax payers. Not to worry, Lee's Summit. You have no group homes here, so he won't burden your city.
Your children still have a chance. Your children still have a future. I pray that none of you ever have to read the following and have it apply to your child. But, if you continue to sit back and do nothing, you will face the same situation that I face today. I let the State of Missouri and the Lee's Summit School District steal my son's future. I will live with that until the day that I die because Jake will be living with me until the day I die. What will happen to him after that, only God knows. I pray that you never have to go to bed at night and think about that.
I have known that my son has autism since he was three years old. I lived in a very small town in Illinois with the population of 1,200. I had twin daughters that were 5 years old and were in all day kindergarten. The town was having testing for children 3-5 years of age. I thought it was to see where they were academically and what they needed to work on prior to starting kindergarten. My son was three years old and the only child that I had home during the day. I signed him up for the testing and took him up to the school. I wasn’t sure if he would go through it because he was a screamer. I don’t mean that he screamed every once in awhile. I mean that he screamed 24/7. For the first two and a half years of his life he would sleep for 30 minutes and scream for the next two hours. This went on all of the time. He didn’t speak or even make noises. He never said MaMa or DaDa. He just screamed. When you tried to hold him he would arch his back. He never reached for me and even really acknowledged me. He just screamed. I had asked the pediatrician and he said boys don’t talk as early as girls and some babies cry more than others. So, they took him into another room for awhile and when they brought him back they said that if they felt that he needed to start Early Childhood they would call me within a week. Within three days I received a phone call. They weren’t sure what his issues were, but the district felt that he "wasn't right" and put him into school. They didn't know what the problem was, but they were determined to find out and give the best that they had.
This was a town of 1,200 people. Their resources were very limited. I didn't even know that my child had an issue. I was blind. Something that would affect my judgment for the next ten years.
These wonderful people put my son into a classroom of six students and two teachers. They gave him OT and ST. They worked on his social skills. They worked on any issue that came up. Not because they had to. He didn't even have an IEP yet. They did it because they saw a child that needed help to be successful in life. They treated him like a human being that needed guidance and support. He was not another drain on their budget. They had practically no budget. It didn't matter. HE mattered.
When he was four they did some educational evaluations. This was before the internet. This was before anyone knew anything about autism. They said that his tests came back with some very odd results. They said that he was way at one end of the curve on some things and at the other end of the curve on other things. There was nothing in the middle. They said that he didn’t make eye contact. I had never noticed this. They said that he didn’t play with other children. That he would only parallel play. They said that he used dramatic and constructive play, but not interactive play. He could name colors, count up to 12, and recognized numbers. He could sequence objects by size and understood concept of big. He needed a routine and things had to always be the same and if it was not it would throw him off. He would flap his arms and rock when he became excited. He couldn’t follow simple instructions. He displayed a short attention span. He was very interested in Thomas the Tank Engine and could name every engine, their color, and their number. He could tell the name of a Disney VHS tape just by the font. You could lay out the movies, without the box, and he could name the movie just because of the font. I never even noticed that each movie had a different font. They took all of this information and started reading. They found that he exhibited many language, behavior, and socialization characteristics that may indicate a pervasive developmental disorder. They included: late talking, limited variety of responses, non-use of greetings, lack of conversation, lack of playing with others, limited eye contact, perseverative language, echolalic language, arm flapping, strange attachment to objects, and an ability to repeat video scripts verbatim.
When my son was five we moved back to Kansas City. This is where my husband and I were raised. We carefully called and interviewed every school district on both sides of the state line. We wanted to make sure that Jake would get the best that Kansas City had to offer.
After several phone calls and interviews we chose Lee's Summit. I went and told the personnel here that the district in Illinois felt that Jake wasn't ready for regular kindergarten. They felt that he needed 1 on 1 or small group instruction for at least one more year. It stated it in his IEP. Lee's Summit assured me that they were a big district that could handle all of his needs and issues and that the best thing for Jake was going to kindergarten. Once again, I was blind.
Jake went to Prairie View from kindergarten through sixth grade. He had some amazing teachers there. They were kind, supportive, and made accommodations that his IEP didn't call for. We had no issues there. I truly felt that we had picked the best school district that we could have. I volunteered in his classroom every week for at least 2-3 hours. I helped with the school carnival. I helped with health fair. I wrote to the Kansas City Star and told them what an amazing job they were doing with my son.
I didn't know much about autism and I felt like the district was doing all that Jake needed. Little did I know that when he got into high school my only hope for him would be living in a group home. That is where we are now. On his IEP the district has decided that his transition program would be to live semi-independently.
WHY? Because the district never addressed his autism. They didn't address his dysgraphia. They didn't address his social issues. They didn't address his written language issues. Why didn't they? I didn't demand it. In seventh grade the only goal he had on his IEP was to be able to write a paragraph. This is a child with autism, dysgraphia, and a written language deficit.
I thought that you had to believe in the experts and trust them. That blindness has caused the loss of my son's independence. If I had educated myself and fought for him, he would have a different future. His future was stolen and I stood back and let it happen.
I gave the school district a five year old with potential. They have given back a child that will never leave home. I let them do this to my child. My silence and acceptance granted them permission to destroy my son's future. He could have been an independent taxpaying citizen. Now he will be a burden on tax payers. Not to worry, Lee's Summit. You have no group homes here, so he won't burden your city.
Your children still have a chance. Your children still have a future. I pray that none of you ever have to read the following and have it apply to your child. But, if you continue to sit back and do nothing, you will face the same situation that I face today. I let the State of Missouri and the Lee's Summit School District steal my son's future. I will live with that until the day that I die because Jake will be living with me until the day I die. What will happen to him after that, only God knows. I pray that you never have to go to bed at night and think about that.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
Inclusive Education: Right For Some
Inclusive Education: Right For Some
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion. (Which is true of our "experts" at school as well as their peers)
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion. (Which is true of our "experts" at school as well as their peers)
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
Inclusive Education: Right For Some
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
Inclusive Education: Right For Some
Inclusive Education: Right For Some
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
by Bernard Rimland, Ph.D.
Is there the parent of an autistic child who wouldn't be delighted beyond words if the child would simply blend smoothly into a regular classroom? That is a dream we all share. For a few, the dream becomes a reality. Over the years I have heard from a number of parents who have shared with us their joy, their pride and their good fortune: "Billy has been included in a regular classroom! He is having a hard time adjusting, but he is making it!" But, for every parent whose child "makes it," there are many more who are not so fortunate.
Much as my wife and I would like to have our autistic son Mark be able to cope successfully in a normal school, it is very clear to us that he could not have done so. He has come along much farther than we ever dared hope, and we are quite confident it is because he was always in special classes, taught by experienced, skilled, caring teachers, exhibiting monumental patience, who had gone to great lengths to train themselves in methods which would help Mark and children like him achieve their full potential.
If a child can be effectively "included," he probably should be. Lovaas got excellent results by mainstreaming the most successful of his early intervention group, but only after intensive training. But there is a difference between inclusion and overinclusion.
If your child functions far below the normal child intellectually, academically, and socially, does it make sense to insist that he or she be "included" in a regular classroom? Certainly not, in my view, and in the view of many, if not the vast majority, of parents of autistic children.
Today special schools and special classes for autistic children are under heavy attack by people promoting "full inclusion." What is full inclusion? Full inclusion means abolishing the special educational provisions that are vitally important to autistic children.
Unfortunately, many professionals and parents have adopted the ideology that full inclusion is the only option that should be made available for any child, irrespective of how inappropriate it may be for that child, and irrespective of the wishes of the parents of that child. What is worse, these people have managed to sway legislative and educational policy so that other options are prohibited. A quarter of a century ago those of us who pioneered public education for autistic children struggled long and hard to compel the educational system to provide things that we knew were necessary to the appropriate education of our children. This included, first and foremost, teachers who were trained in the techniques of behavior modification and who understood the peculiarities of autistic children.
In the last issue of the ARRI we published a small article titled "Full inclusion: the right choice?" Our article was based on a report by Simpson and Sasso in which they noted that there was no empirical evidence showing that full inclusion was beneficial. It seems that the full inclusion movement has been so quickly bought by the educational establishment that those who believe that a full range of options should be available have not had time to organize any meaningful opposition. We received many letters and calls of thanks from parents who were pleased to see that were addressing this issue.
Several years ago I received an urgent plea for help from a group of parents in Michigan whose children attended the Burger Center for Autistic Children. I was invited to speak there and made a tour of the facility. I was impressed. The staff were obviously very much involved with autism, the teaching of autistic children and all the details of autism. They communicated with each other with ideas and suggestions and enthusiasm that won my admiration. They certainly had the support of the parent group. The problem was that full inclusion was being heavily promoted in Michigan, and rational and efficient programs like the Burger School program for autism were in dire threat of being closed down.
I have no quarrel with inclusionists if they are content to insist upon inclusion for their children, or for children of other parents who feel that it is optimum for their children. But, when they try to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. Parents need options.
If there are no objective data showing that full inclusion works better than giving people several options, why is it being promoted so avidly? Douglas Billen attempts to answer that question solely on ideological grounds. In his book, Achieving the Complete School, he says of mainstreaming, "To ask, Does it work? is to ask the wrong question." He believes that full inclusion and mainstreaming should be the only choice available to us because it is the right choice, the right thing to do. He makes an analogy with slavery. Slavery, he says, was abolished because it was morally wrong, not because it didn't work. He also asserts that objective scientific data are irrelevant, because the issue is a moral one.
I disagree strongly with Biklen on both counts. Biklen has the slavery analogy exactly backward: making full inclusion the only option does not resemble the abolition of slavery, but instead the imposition of slavery. Like slavery, full inclusion rejects the idea that people should be free to choose for themselves the options they desire, and compels them to accede to the wishes of others. And as for Biklen's rejection of scientific data, I want my children educated in ways that will assure the best outcome, as learned from scientific studies, not in ways that accord with someone's theory, or ideology, or the educational fad of the year.
Special education consultant Laurence Lieberman is one of the very few educators with the courage to speak out and tell the wrong. Recently the National Association of State Boards of Education endorsed the principle of full inclusion of students with disabilities. Lieberman's insightful response, published as a letter to the editor in EducationWeek for December 16, 1992, is a classic, and is reprinted here in part:
"People involved in education cannot agree on school choice, on promotion policies, on achievement testing, on curricula, teaching approaches, or the distribution of condoms. But all the state boards of education can agree on full inclusion for all disabled students?
"This is obviously a money issue, pure and simple. The key may be found in the paragraph in your story that says a new report from NASBE proposes that funds be provided on the basis of instructional need, not head counts. That need seems to have been already predetermined by the organization; full inclusion in regular classrooms for all disabled students.
"The article-and quite possibly the report-refuses to deal with the real nature of some children, which might require that they not be in a regular classroom.
"Some educators would place the issue of full inclusion solely in the realm of morality. Anything separate is evil. There may be a higher immorality than separateness: lack of progress, lack of achievement, lack of skills, and splintered learning of meaningless academic trivia.
"There is the issue that special education hasn't been effective. Where, and for whom and why? Because it has been too separate? Unlikely. There regular classroom is not separate by definition. Has it worked? Sometimes, but not all of the time. Placing severely disabled students in regular classrooms presupposes a level of individualization that does not exist.
"Some educators believe that disabled children will be much more accepted, and society as a whole will show much greater compassion for the disabled, if all children are in regular classrooms. Knowledge does not necessarily lead to compassion.
"There is a common belief that when disabled children are in physical proximity to normal children they will tend to adopt more normal behavior patterns. This is obviously not the case with many autistic children, who generally begin life surrounded by normal families.
"Full inclusion is not the right thing to do. It is one right thing to do, sometimes.
"Any organization...that endorses full inclusion is taking an extremist position that has no place in an educational system and a society that prides itself on its choices and multiple ways to achieve a desired quality of life."
I agree with Lieberman. If special education for autism is destroyed, it will be lost for at least one generation, and perhaps several.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)