Remember, though, that the idea behind services and accommodations for kids with LD's and physical impairments is NOT to 'reduce expectations' but to evaluate what the student's potential peer group should be, if the disability didn't limit the student's ability to perform or access a particular program, and to then figure out a way to REMOVE the barrier so that the student reaches that level of actual performance.
Those are distinct methods of accommodating a student with a disability; the old way of thinking had us reducing expectations, and the new way has us 'removing barriers' and keeping appropriately lofty expectations.
I'd argue, however, that there are probably some accommodations which are questionable in this sense, since they will NEVER be applied in the "real world," and they would likely prove helpful to "unaffected peers" as well (for example, extended time on the SAT has been shown to raise scores-- ALL students' scores, not just those with documented disability). So those things may or may not be the true equivalent of a wheelchair ramp or braille materials. On the other hand, those accommodations (like extra time on assessments) are not expensive, either, and they do allow students to learn and demonstrate understanding in a way that shows marked improvement over not having those accommodations.
Along those same lines, while I realize perfectly well that the "real world" argument is a bit specious here (remember, my DD has accommodations for school that aren't "real world" reflective), there is another angle to consider... reality doesn't really care in particular what a person's accommodations 'need' to be. That is, if you have impairment X, then career options A, B, and C are simply off the table. Pretending that this isn't so is kind of wrong in some sense, becuase there ARE people who, with no accommodations whatsoever, are well-suited to A, B, and C. Making someone LOOK as though they are in that group via accommodations is... um... unfair to everyone? And I get how painful it is to face those things. Believe me, I do. My kid cannot serve in the armed forces. Period. She's DQ'ed automatically, which is kind of unfair. But that is life.
There is also an ethically sticky portion to this entire mess, which is this: should students whose intellectual disabilities are profound be allowed "educational benefit" at any cost, even if that benefit is minimal and the costs are crippling? I'd argue "perhaps not" in a system where dollars are a scarce resource. I know that it sounds cruel, and it makes me sad because it isn't what I'd like to say... but the majority of children deserve to have desks and textbooks even if that means that a child with the cognitive ability of a 2 year old doesn't recieve one-to-one tutoring at life skills and skilled nursing care for eight hours a day on the school district's dime.
I also agree that with administrators (necessarily) focused on meeting AYP, there is a truly insidious incentive for schools to shuffle marginal, questionable, and failing students elsewhere-- using whatever means necessary. This is partly the same phenomenon which drives a reluctance to challenge HG+ kids, too, by the way. Because our kids are a guaranteed test score within the group of their chronological peers. Why risk that?
It's all rather icky, honestly.
Last edited by HowlerKarma; 06/28/12 02:18 PM. Reason: clarity
