Recently I was at a conference, at which a colleague and work partner and I were presenting a session about increasing graduation outcomes for students with disabilities. I was sharing some of our rather dismal and somewhat alarming data as a nation, state, and region regarding graduation and drop out rates for students with disabilities. As a state we have a history of not doing well by our students with disabilities regarding achievement, inclusion in the general education setting with their peers without disabilities (LRE), discipline, and graduation. One attendee in the audience politely asked if we had some ideas as to why our state was not doing well specific to graduation rates. I responded by mentioning that while the federal legislation outline expectations for states, each state has been able to set their own targets and some aimed high while others were more conservative. While the low targets may look a bit better in the short term, they will not catch up in the long term.
I went on to state that also as a society we have lowered expectations when it comes to outcomes for students with disabilities. At this statement, another person took offense. He became quite defensive saying that my comment was wrong and offensive. I presented further data from several years ago that showed that of students with disabilities who were excused from the consequences of high stakes testing by their IEP team PRIOR to ever attempting the assessment, after taking the test, over 20 percent of them actually passed the test. This exemplifies lowered expectations. It was assumed by these IEP teams that the students with disabilities would likely not pass the test so they were excused from having to pass it based on assumptions. Twenty percent of these same of students with disabilities, in fact, passed the test, despite the assumptions made about them by their teams. Our naysayer went on to comment that he deemed it unfair and unjustified for people like us, people he viewed as in "power", to assume that people like him "in the trenches" with kids are not working hard to help students with disabilities.
When people get defensive in response to someone saying something they find controversial, often that individual feels the need to protect themselves, their beliefs, or their opinions from what they perceive as an attack or criticism. Being defensive can manifest in various ways, such as outright denying the validity of the controversial statement or dismissing it without considering its merits; counterattacking by responding aggressively or attacking the person who made the statement rather than addressing the content of the statement itself; or rationalization in which they attempt to justify their own beliefs or actions in the face of the controversial statement. They may also deflect or distract by attempting to change the subject and in some cases, individuals may withdraw from the conversation or avoid engaging in discussions that challenge their views. In our case, the defensive individual chose to deny, counterattack and rationalize.
I believe that most people who work with students with disabilities have the absolute best of intentions. I do not think most folks are out to do harm to anyone. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This proverb warns about the potential negative consequences that can arise from actions or decisions that were well-intentioned but ended up causing harm or leading to undesirable outcomes. In essence, it suggests that even when people have the best of intentions and believe they are doing the right thing, their actions may still result in unintended negative consequences. This is often true in special education programming for students with disabilities.
We often see separate programs for students with disabilities or other learning differences. These programs are designed not to harm children. The are designed with the intent to better serve them. People often think it is best to group children with special learning needs together in a separate setting so they can be provided with more intensive and highly specialized programming. But what this really does is exclude them from the same high quality and rigorous instruction that their peers without disability are accessing. Additionally, changing expectations or outcomes for students with disabilities as compared to their peers without disabilities may help students with disabilities to enjoy a higher rate of success but what this really does is shelter them from hard work and high expectations, and yes, even failure. This sheltering is not doing them a service. It is actually a disservice. The world is full of amazing things, happiness, and successes, but it is also full of disappointment, loss and failure. We all need to learn how to handle and manage and learn from disappointment, loss, and failure. We cannot learn form it if we never experience it. We need to support and coach children when they are unable to accomplish something...yet. But not allowing them to try because we do not want them to feel bad is not the way to go.
Passing students along from grade to grade, subject to subject, task to task, when they have not attempted the same rigorous work or have not been held to the same standards as their peers without disabilities is lowering expectations. Assuming that students with disabilities cannot do the same things as their peers without disabilities prior to even giving them a chance is lowering expectations. Often lowered expectations are masked with good intentions. By removing kids from the general education setting without offering them a chance there first, with supports, is lowering expectations.
Most of the time, students with disabilities are removed and excluded from the general education setting with the good intentions of it being in their best interest, or to keep them happy and safe and free from bullying. While this may be true to some extent, there will be unintended consequences. Once children leave school, they will not be as protected as the well intentioned folks at school have tried to arrange. Their is no segregated movie theater, there are no competitive self contained special ed jobs. Students with disabilities will one day leave the shelter of school to become members of the larger society where they will have to interact with people without disabilities. They may encounter bullying and impatient people. They may no longer be as safe. By not teaching students with disabilities how to handle these situations, we are lowering expectations. We are assuming they will not be able to handle or understand it or that will always need, and always have, someone to intervene on their behalf.
In the guise of helping, we are actually hindering students with disabilities when we do not hold them to the same high expectations we have for students without disabilities. Now I am not saying that all students with or without disabilities will reach the same outcome on the same pathway at the same pace and at the same time. All students will need various supports along the way, and some will need more time as well. And some will not make it, but that does not mean we should not always TRY to get them to the same outcome. Keep that same outcome in mind as the finish line for all students and then do your best to get them there or as close as possible. Provide them with supports and services to help them attain this outcome. That is how we can best support all learners and how we can increase our expectations and outcomes for our students with disabilities.