"U.S. court histories are filled with disputable efforts to define race." (Spring 62)
Reading Spring's history of how courts and the U.S. census bureau have defined race, I'm struck by the absolute absurdity of the decision histories. First, courts ruled skin color was not a valid criterion. So they instead adopted the idea of Caucasian identity. Then, that was rejected. I'm struck by how illogical the whole process is. I realize that racism often stems from misguided prejudice and ignorance, but there's simply a lack of reasoning behind these court decisions. If courts were not defining race based on skin color, then how can they possibly justify continued bias against people of color? I find the whole idea of replacing skin color criteria with Caucasian hilariously tragic, as if that someone clears up confusion. I think this whole history really helps to emphasize the idea that race is a purely social construct.
"Equal treatment by the law is the great principle unbderlying the idea of equality of educational opportunity. Everyone should receive equal treatment by the law. No one should receive special privileges or treatment because of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or wealth." (Spring 64)
I feel like some of Spring's personal opinion is shining through in this statement. I'm beginning to question the idea that everyone should receive the same treatment. Everyone should certainly have the same opportunities. But to enable everyone to have the same opportunities, some individuals will need special treatment. A good example is the discussion we had a few weeks back regarding funding to schools. Many people might argue that solving the problems of urban schools requires even funding of schools. But money itself only goes so far, and sme of these schools face so many problems that the only way they will become functionally equal to suburban schools is through increased funding. The end goal of special treatment is still an equality of opportunity, but in some situations it will take more work to reach that level. This is especially apparent when discussing students of color trying to succeed in a white-dominated society.
"The lack of training of classroom teachers and the limited availability of aides and special education resources make implementing inclusion difficult. Not surprisingly, the lack of adequate funding underlies all." (Spring 78)
I have mixed feelings about inclusion. In principle, I fully support it. The idea that students with cognitive disabilities are not segregated from their peers is an agreeable one. I remember my elementary school years when inclusion was not a common practice. There was a special education classroom down the hall. We rarely saw or spoke to the students. Looking back on it, it seems so wrong and borderline cruel to isolate them like that. But in practice, inclusion seems largely unsuccessful. In my experiences as a substitute, many special education students get left behind in the regular classroom. The idea that they are motivated by the higher achieving students is largely a joke; the lower students more commonly become discouraged and begin to look down on themselves. Special education teachers seem to struggle to provide these students with truly meaningful, long lasting supports as opposed to quick, reactive supports based on whatever lesson they're working on at the time. And finally, in a system with standards and testing and so many other responsibilities, many teachers are simply logistically unable to individual lesson plans. I would be wary of saying the teachers are overburdened. While some may resent the idea of individualizing lessons, I think some would truly try if they had the time. But with all the problems inherent in the educational system, I just question how effective inclusion really is in terms of helping students with disabilities.
"The Court made it clear that it did not reject the idea of Bible reading as a part of a study of comparative religion or the history of religion. Nor did the Court exclude the possibility of studying the Bible as a piece of literature. What the court objected to was the reading of the Bible as part of a religious exercise." (Spring 267)
I think this is a very important distinction of how religion is used in the classroom. Unfortunately, this is often confused or misunderstood by many people. Schools can - and in my opinion should - bring the Bible and other religious texts into the classroom to promote an understanding of diverse religions. The schools are not asking students to actually believe in these religions, nor should a school ever advocate belief in a specific religion. But considering religion is a big part of the society we live in, it is vitally important that students have an understanding of it. It's no different that studying a political belief. Schools should not ask students to follow certain political views, but they certainly teach students why some people believe in a certain view. Similarly, students should understand what other religions believe, why they believe, and how that guides actions throughout history and in the present.
The readings that show the definitions of how race has been classified were very enlightening to me. Who gets to draw the line that divides people apart? Who gets to say that a light skinned Cubano is Latino and another race than White, but my friend Savvas, who is a very very tan man from Greece is considered white? Black people are actually brown and Latinos come in shades of brown, yellow, and peachy. Then if you divide by other criterion, there are always outliers and mistakes with that categorizing! Are we just humans who like to group everything, or is this racial division polarizing? I also question the role of inclusion in classrooms, but for more severe cases of students with special needs. A boy in my field experience class has very mild cognitive 'deficiencies' if you had to call it something. However, I know that certain simple modifications can be made for him, like printing out the teacher's slides for him in advance so he can focus on the lectures at hand instead of scrambling to copy all the notes down. But in a more severe case of students wigh impaired cognitive abilities, I would be grateful for examples of how to include them in a lesson and to make sure that both they, and the "regular abilitiy" students benefit.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned, inclusion is good and noble in principle. But practically it doesn't work. I know many teachers are resentful of inclusive practices, which I would argue is the incorrect attitude. Teachers should try to individualize lesson plans as best they can. My criticism of inclusion comes more from the point of view of those educators who consistently try their best to accommodate students. We need to remember teachers are people, not magical superheroes with unlimited stamina. No matter how hard they try, teachers simply cannot actually accomplish everything we ask of them. At least not within our current system. The supports are not enough. And ultimately, this results in the system failing to meet the needs of special education students. I don't recommend segregating these students, but it seems more beneficial to the students at least in terms of our current system - which is a sad statement of the problems inherent in our system.
ReplyDeleteI would imagine it will be hard to truly accomodate for every student, and especially when some schools are trying to increase teacher hours and the schoolday is lengthening. With large classes and not enough support, it would be impossible to do what we really want to do interms of total engagement and total inclusion for every student. I personally wish that we had more special education classes here to give us practical advice- SPED 501 was great, but I think that I could use more guidance in this area!
ReplyDeleteIndeed, 501 was great. I feel like it at least opened my eyes and made me conscious of trying to accommodate students of different needs. In my experience, far too many teachers seem unaware or simply don't care about trying to differentiate instruction. Callously expecting each student to function the same is not effective teaching. And far too many teachers act that way, which ultimately leads to inclusion practices failing. Until more teachers are willing to accommodate and until supports are in place, I feel almost as if old segregation policies might have more impact on student learning. I feel awful even saying that, but I just think inclusion as it's currently practiced is so broken that it might actually be detrimental to learning.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the real benefit as I see it in inclusion is the social aspect of learning, something that is not emphasized enough. Segregating special needs students academically may be more beneficial in our current system, but it would leave them socially isolated.