The "new" push for inclusion

I've spoken of this topic before, and just this week, it seems the topic is picking up steam here in the land of sunshine.  Two different articles for two different locales, though the content and message they are trying to convey is essentially the same........as well as very pretty sugar coating.

First and foremost, the push for inclusion (at least in this county) has very little to do with trying to provide FAPE and LRE for it's students.  There are some isolated cases where that is true; but few and far between.  This is all about our budget issues and funding.  Some might find my view jaded, or overly opinionated, but I work in this field, and have a child in this system.  I have experienced first hand both sides of this push, and in both instances the word "cost" has been discussed with me.

The first article this week highlights many concerns that I had already mentioned.  The most important being adequate training of public education staff.  Most of them receive crash course special education training, that is far to generic in nature, if at all.  They are left highly unequipped to serve the population they are working with, which is in no way a better option for the students they serve.  They are not prepared to receive the influx of students being pushed back to a public campus.  On the flip side, these students are having to experience a massive transition with little warning, and staff that do not understand how to help them through this change.....

And let me elaborate on that just a little more.  Have administrator's really thoroughly thought out exactly what a child with moderate to severe disabilities has to go through with this change relative to their unique needs?  First you abruptly transition a student to a new school.  Secondly, in most cases, you are placing this student in a setting with no familiarity, several hundred more bodies, classes that change every hour (for those in Jr. through SR. high), and a myriad of other sensory overload situations.  If a student is truly ready to transition back to an LRE, this is a process in which they need to be slowly integrated into, with support staff from their current site to help both the student and the new staff understand each student individually.  Were these students able to handle a public setting with ease, they wouldn't be in a non public setting in the first place.  Third (and often most importantly) you must ensure that the receiving staff are ALREADY trained in the specific disability, as well as having whatever accommodations, visuals, etc. prepared and accessible for said student upon their arrival.  To do any less sets both the staff and the student up for failure, or at the very least, lost educational time and progress towards behavioral and academic goals.

This point was brought up in the first article by a few parents.  That they were given little to no notice that this change would happen, and that their children suffered because of it. 

One of the big themes of this first article was about non public settings cost, and strategies employed in said settings i.e. reinforcement systems, and ancillary staff.  There were many gripes about reinforcement systems being to costly, unacceptable, and one commenter who is a para educator spoke of it as it being completely unnecessary (evidently she forgot her applied behavioral analysis classes, or wasn't paying attention).  You  have to truly know the population, to understand why reinforcement is so crucial (and you need to re-examine yourself and realize that your own life if fueled by "reinforcement", nobody works for free).  I will agree that it can be overused, and not phased out soon enough in some settings, and for some students.  This does not negate its value. 

As for the cost of ancillary services in the non public setting, there are a few truths to that, and some points that have been overlooked in the comparison of non public vs public setting.  In this county, there are some non public sites that do charge separately for speech, occupational therapy, counseling, etc.  But there are also many sites that include these services as part of the daily rate charged to the district.  Many sites that include the cost also fully utilize these departments for more than just pull out sessions.  They use them to host inservices, create materials (for teachers who are already working 10+ hours a day), assist with behavioral situations, playground supervision, and any other place a need is to be met.  They, as well as the other educational staff on campus, are paid far under what the public setting pay rate is because of the unique needs of the students higher staffing ratio, and required specialized materials.  Though this article claims the opposite to be true, that is not the case in this county.

On to the second article, which in many ways, just irritates me further.  This one was highlighting the success of a particular new program and a very specific student on a public campus who came from a non public program.  I say very specific student with emphasis, and will leave it at that.  This program sells itself as innovative and forward thinking into integrating students back into the public setting (under the guise of inclusion and meeting the social needs of these students).  This programs design was borrowed from the non public setting in which this specific student came from.  They of course do not elaborate on that point, but do berate the non public settings for not having the opportunity for socialization with typical peers.  They tout the success of this student in their new program, when in reality, it was the non public setting that laid the ground work for this student.

I am a firm believer in inclusion and LREFAPE, Administrators need to take a step back and really examine what is in the best interest of each individual student, and if this sudden trend is really going to provide that free and appropriate education they are supposed to be providing.

As usual, my two cents on the subject.