Inclusive Exclusion?

Inclusive Exclusion? Prior to the extant federally mandated provision of "least restrictive environment" for students with learning disabilities, there were attempts to include some children with disabilities in groupings of students who did not have learning disabilities. [Or, at least, the non-disabled students' abilities were sufficiently normative to not merit "labeling."] Prior to inclusion, segregation of students with normatively deviant abilities was commonplace. Prior to segregation, there were no formal services provided to children whose abilities significantly deviated from the norm. Prior to that "exclusive" arrangement, there were few formal educational experiences (i.e., "school") at all...for any children. Does this lack of formal educational arrangements mean that no suitable education "happened?" Of course not. Does the much lauded--and politically correct--paradigm of the "least restrictive environment" guarantee that suitable education will be effected? No...at least not arbitrarily. Certainly, learning--which ought to be the goal of education--can occur in any or all of the above-mentioned situations. Most of what we know as "education" is promoted and perpetuated by normal educators (as in the statistically normative range). The goal is to provide services to normal children (the same statistical usage). While much is proclaimed about the celebration of diversity--and the supposed recognition and accommodation of normatively deviant learners--the truth is that most recent changes (i.e., in the last one-hundred years or so) have been made in compulsive attempts to "normalize" deviancy. There are two groups that suffer as a result of this compulsion: (1) Students with disabilities (learning and otherwise), and (2) Students with exceptionally high abilities (whether intellectual, or creative, or both). [It is possible for a learner to "be a member" of both groups. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.] It is clear that the greater the deviation, the greater is the difficulty in providing services to these learners. If it is "decided" that a learner cannot be adequately "normalized" he or she will be ostracized. [Remember, one can be "alone" in a crowd of people.]

Some learners--both abnormally able (remember...statistics...population) and abnormally less able--are cognizant of their "specialness" and strive to be recognized as part of the normal group (i.e., the tribe). Learners a bit farther out in the fringe who are not cognizant of their specialness, and/or lack the "skills" to self-normalize, are often forced toward normalization. It borders on "evil"--and most assuredly makes no sense--to force the inclusion (a.k.a. normalization) of some learners. Where rational accommodations can be made for these students, they should be made. If that includes an alternative service placement, then such a placement should be made whenever it is appropriate. In some ways (or, for some people) the benefit of such placement can be more readily seen in the case of the exceptionally gifted learner. What if an irrational, illinformed, compulsive "system" were to take our next Einstein (or Stephen Hawking) and force him or her to be mainstreamed by inclusion? It is clear that forcing a prodigious mathematician to suffer the boredom of general math classes--for the purpose of inclusion--is both cruel and stupid. Conversely, how can forced inclusion of significantly less-abled people result in a better experience for them and the normal learners with whom they are included? "Special" is, by definition, not normal. Current trends overly emphasize normalization--a function of socialization...not education--rather than true progress toward greater experience. How much greatness are we destroying in the headlong rush to normalize special learners? How much specialness is excluded by inclusion?