Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Inclusion models - what works?

ETA: Apologies aeh - my post above was not meant to suggest that's how inclusion must work, I was only describing what actually happens here. I agree that it could be done way better. This other (belated) half of my post was intended to be a tad more positive!

OK, I know I'm babbling way too much when I have to split into two separate responses (and many hours pass in between). But beyond complaining, I wanted to reflect on aeh's great ideas, and see if we can describe a system in which inclusion could actually work. Some (pretty random) thoughts about what that might look like:

Inclusion should be seen as a value, not the only value. I think we've drunk so deep of the cool-aid we've lost the ability to realize that only some of the world is purple. Inclusive education is valuable, important and effective for many kids, and their families need to be able to choose this option. However, it doesn't work for all kids, and we need to explicitly recognize that we need a range of ways of responding to a range of needs. Alternatives to inclusion should not be forbidden. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of the philosophical adherence to inclusion as a value to see it as needing to be absolute.

What would work? For instance, I would have loved to see my DD grouped for a year or two with other dyslexic kids, and when older, with other dyscalculic kids. They could then be matched with a teacher who had not only heard of these disabilities, but had training, experience, and desire to teach this group. Instead of feeling stupid, incapable and not learning, DD could have felt fully as able as her peers, and be learning - because we would have been teaching her the way she needed to learn, at the pace she needed. And when remediation was done, her compensation skills well-solidified, and her curriculum caught up - she moves seamless back into the "regular classroom", which is indistinguishable from the classroom she's been in. In other words, inclusion most of the time, when it's helping her. Specialized class with appropriate peers when her needs at that time are outside what's happening in the regular classroom.

Taken fully and literally as the driving force of our education system, inclusion means no tracking, no grouping, no specialized classes or programs. We've never had tracking in elementary, but now inclusion is being used to justify eliminating alternative pathways in secondary as well, from streaming/ tracks to gifted supports to specialized arts schools. Which takes me to:

Universal Design for Learning is only a small part of the answer: I've heard it 1000 times now: what's essential for one is good for all. Yes, when we are talking about certain kinds of learning accommodations. When everyone can use laptops, voice recognition, etc, it destigmatizes these supports and that brings huge benefits. But we have to recognize that UDL is about removing barriers to access to the regular classroom, the regular curriculum. Taken to its extreme - which of course we have - UDL makes a mockery of the whole concept of spec ed, because its a model that fundamentally comes down to you do the exact same thing for everyone. If you can't do it for everyone, you do it for no one. Specialized remediation cannot exist in this interpretation, nor can enrichment. In gifted, we see this translate into an increased tendency to propose gifted supports that provide generic extracurricular activities that actually do benefit everybody - as opposed to providing kids who need it a daily curriculum that is deeper, faster or more complex. Speed and complexity are not good for all.

Responsibility must lie with the system, not the individual teacher: We cannot implement inclusion by saying "the individual teacher will differentiate" and wipe our hands of it. We have to build a support system that makes it possible for the teacher to do what we are expecting of them. And that means:

We invest a huge amount of $, time and resources: teachers need a ton of training to be able to identify spec ed issues and needs, and be able to address them in the classroom. They need tools for universal early identification and programs for early intervention. They need ready-made curriculum and resources. They need time, back-up and coaching, and other teachers in the classroom to address more intense needs and those kids who need different curriculum, not just easier access to the same curriculum as everyone. And as far as I know, there is yet still no research showing that Differentiated Instruction has ever been successfully implemented, let alone that it works.

We group by ZPD, and realize it's both subject-specific and a moving target: Great point by aeh. Our challenges here are exacerbated by our determination that both speeding up and slowing down are terrible things to do to children. (Again, "inclusion" is taken to an extreme that sees instructional modifications as contraindicated. We aren't all getting the same education if some of us aren't, well, getting the same education.) Instead of grouping by age, we could group kids by readiness to learn, and the teaching approaches and pace they need. We have the flexibility to help some kids overall learn at a slower pace, some at faster, and to recognize the difference between a global need for a different pace (i.e. to address intellectual disabilities or giftedness, and a temporary one (i.e. during remediation catch-up to address an LD).

We constantly connect students across groups: Building on Tigerle's 'keep them in the same building', we also need to keep them mixed as much as possible. Shared subjects, lunch space, etc - keep them mixed up and moving.

Make sure the best teachers get the most challenging kids: Much of the research that finds streaming doesn't work actually finds that the kids with the greatest need consistently get the worst teachers - the grouping may not be the problem. Build in the incentives that flip that. Which goes back to - make it possible for good teachers to do a good job with the "hard" and outlier classes, whatever those classes are.

I do agree that overall, Canada does a good job of reducing the impact of low income, newcomers, and other challenges that can leave students marginalized. I believe that the correlations between income and school achievement are lower here than most places. We have an approach that is able to reach a good portion of those able to respond to the standard curriculum. We play very well to the middle. But boy do we have a long way to go for the non-neurotypicals.

OK, way more than enough ranting for one day!