The Writings of
R . B r i a n
C l a r d y
Conservative Politics and Common
Sense... Imagine the Possibilities!
Educating Special Education, Part FiveMost people in this country have never heard of the Obertis, and neither had I until I stumbled across an article dealing with this family’s struggle to get their son an education that they deemed proper and fulfilling. For the administrators and educators of Clementon, New Jersey, however, the Carlos and Jeanne Oberti are likely to not be easily forgotten. Their son, Rafael, suffers from Down Syndrome, and when his family sought to enroll him in the public schools, they were told he would be placed in a special education classroom where he would get the appropriate attention his condition warranted. Seems reasonable, but the Obertis balked, insisting that their son be placed in a regular classroom. When the school district denied their request, the Obertis went to court where after losing to Clementon, a U.S. District Court judge took their side on appeal and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed it. “‘Inclusion is a right, not a privilege for a select few,’ the District Court judge wrote.” As is typical of judges who make legislation from the bench, they do not see the many problems that will result of their decision.A BrianClardy.Com continuing series discussing the education of special needs children. In today’s political climate, it is unfortunate but true that special needs children are used as political pawns on both the right and the left to accomplish whatever budgetary needs they may have. What is necessary, but infrequently occurs, is common sense applied to this particular dilemma even while frequent studies are performed and innumerable millions of dollars wasted in pointless research that accomplishes little except to confirm the common sense methodology which should be used to confront and deal with these problems.
And there are many to be found with wholesale, unreasoned inclusion of students in a public school setting. It is difficult to assess because people on one side can see benefits while those in opposition see the same thing as a demerit. This case is further complicated by the nature of the Oberti family, who are not a complacent bunch. Now, a lack of complacency is not necessarily a bad thing, but a certain amount is necessary in order for common sense and thought to work its way through the stubbornness that guards irrational and potentially ill-conceived ideas. The Obertis’ stubbornness stems from the system failing them very early in Rafael’s life, though, “when they were told [shortly after his birth] they should put him up for adoption and try again.” Rightfully, the Obertis “have been wary of outside opinions,” as any parent would be. But, this distrust has become counter-productive to Rafael. In later years, when a speech therapist suggested a speech board allowing Rafael the ability to communicate by using keys, Mrs. Oberti balked. “I said, ‘Wait a minute. You’re supposed to work on articulation, not say my child won’t ever speak.’ […] Low expectations are a very, very dangerous thing.” True, but one purpose of the inclusion the Obertis sought is to allow the student to learn by example, so why not allow the use of a speech board as a temporary crutch to help Rafael advance? The Obertis have high expectations, but we must consider what sort of reasonable standard can be expected.
The Oberti case helped to highlight the larger debate over inclusion in schools. As the article noted, there is “a larger national conflict between the staunch advocates of including children with severe disabilities in regular classrooms and those who question the wisdom and fairness of such a policy.” Those on both sides have valid reasons, and the Obertis forced people to confront a critical and guiding question for the entire inclusion debate, “questions about control and balance. Whose expectations should govern a child’s education? Do the rights of the many – in this case, an entire class of children – weigh more than the rights of one?” These are things that we have to seriously consider, especially the rights of the regular education students in the classroom.
Their distrust of the system caused the Obertis to be less reasonable when it came to standards and tests that are designed to best serve the needs of the child, and they are upset by labeling that allows districts to send children off to special schools. But, the problem of including severely disabled children in the classroom can lead to other unintended consequences – things that the Obertis, and other inclusion activists, have little concern for. When Rafael was put into a regular classroom, he was placed into a remedial, pre-kindergarten program because he wasn’t ready for kindergarten. The teacher observed that Rafael “demanded too much of her time and that the other children suffered as a result. Rafael, she said, would throw pencils and crayons, crawl under desks, spit, scream, and cry. On the playground one day…, Rafael choked another student.” Another teacher reported that Rafael “slapped her and was often disruptive during their sessions.” She openly admitted he “needed to be in a special education class where he could receive more extensive speech therapy than” her school offered. These are serious social skills that Rafael lacks, and he endangered other students and the teachers as a result, not because he wanted to, but because it simply didn’t understand.
Even those who opposed Rafael’s inclusion in a regular classroom were willing to accept him when he was ready. The special education coordinator for Clementon’s school said “she didn’t oppose including disabled children in the regular classroom, but she felt that Rafael wasn’t prepared. ‘I feel strongly that at some point in time it might be a beneficial experience for him, but at this time it would not be.’” She went on to observe the problem with expectations, noting that Rafael’s frustration “was, perhaps, in his own perception that he was not able to do many of the thing that were going on in the classroom.” For the Obertis, this is the fault of the Clementon schools. “For their part, [the Obertis] were thrilled with Rafael’s progress in class. He learned to recognize 16 letters of the alphabet. ‘Of course, the other kids knew all 26, but I said, “Look at the progress,” where the school said, “Oh, we failed, so he’s not in the right place,”’ Jeanne says. ‘They kept saying he’s not ready. In their minds, I don’t think Rafael would ever be “ready.”’” How does she know? The special education coordinator had already said that when he was prepared, he would be accepted into the school’s regular classrooms. Are the other students’ needs and best interests really being served in a classroom where his disruptions and behaviors prohibit them from successfully learning their alphabets?
I understand that Rafael is suffering from a disease over which he has no control, and I sympathize with the Obertis and the struggles they have gone through in an effort to get the best education for their child. But, perhaps their high standards need to be lowered – if only temporarily. They recognize that Rafael will never function at the same level as a person his age, so why are they refusing to concede that he needs his education approached differently from other students his age? A resident of Clementon whose daughter was in Rafael’s class remembers thinking, “why is he here? He isn’t ready for this school.” If he isn’t ready, then in fairness to all – Rafael most of all – why is he there?
Certainly, I wouldn’t go as far as one of Clementon’s lawyers who insists that “inclusion turns regular classrooms into special education classes for all the students,” because if implemented properly, that’s not what inclusion is. But, one must consider how to best meet the needs of all children, especially those like Rafael. It is unreasonable to expect a small school district to be able to fund the tremendous costs that are unfortunately associated with a special education student, especially one as severely disabled as Rafael is. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of dollars for one student in one school for only a few years, when the same amount of money could be used in a regional setting to educate four or five students with similar conditions. If the coursework that is being offered at these special schools is designed as skills-builders, allowing these students to get the necessary foundation of social and academic skills they need so they can then be included in the regular classroom, then what is the problem? Is it so unreasonable to expect that taxpayer money is going to be used as efficiently as possible to do the most good?
Inclusion is the idea that a student enters an environment where they are socially and academically similar to the students they are in class with. The fact is, no evidence ever suggests that Rafael was anywhere near that stage when he enrolled in school, and while the Obertis certainly had the best interests of their child in mind, they placed unreasonable expectations upon the school district to do something in a short few months which they had years to practice and perfect: controlling their child so that he had the best chance of success.
The article closes with the Obertis’ adamant hope for their child: “They aren’t going to place any limits on Rafael.”
The Obertis do not realize that they already have placed limits on him, though, by forcing Rafael into an environment that he is not even remotely prepared for. This places limits on him. It counters whatever strides and efforts might have been made by specially trained professionals in his formative years to get his developmental and educational foundations in place and solidified so that, at a later point, he could be mainstreamed into a regular classroom and included with students approximating his own age.
Instead, the Obertis forced him into a situation for which he wasn’t prepared. And inclusion rights or not, that certainly isn’t fair to any other student in that classroom, nor is it fair to Rafael.
The article referenced in this commentary came from Teacher Magazine, March 1996, Vol. 7, Issue 6 and was written by Lynn Schnaiberg.
All written material on this
website not attributed to another author is © 2001-2004 by Brian Clardy.
No part of this website may
be reproduced in any way without the explicit consent of Brian Clardy.
All rights reserved.