I recently came across an article that discusses objections to inclusion. This article definitely made me think, and in some ways it reminds me of what I believe strongly – that bad inclusion is often used as an argument against inclusion. I have a lot of thoughts on some of the things that she says, so I am going to write in 2 installments.
Here’s Part 1. The article’s author wrote: “I’ve witnessed instances in my own kid’s classrooms, where both the teacher and teacher aide were needed to skilfully ‘manage’ one child’s behaviour, while the other 20+ children sat and waited patiently for the crisis to pass. So resigned was the rest of the class, I was curious as to how much of their time was routinely spent in this fashion, and whether this impacted their learning.”
First of all, I certainly agree that we don’t want one child to impact the learning of the rest of the class. So, let’s unpack this.
If this child has a history of difficult behaviors, he/she should have a Behavior Support Plan (BSP). Does this child have one? I am amazed at the number of children who have so-called “behaviors” who don’t have one. That leaves the teacher/aide left to scramble, the rest of the kids to wait, and the child to have their behavior reinforced. I’d be curious what this child’s BSP looks like (if they have one at all).
Many children with “behaviors” aren’t given a BSP, their behaviors are being reinforced, and then their mismanaged behavior is used as justification that inclusion isn’t working.
Let me give you an example: When Sabrina was in preschool, she had a habit of grabbing things and dumping them on the floor. The staff would immediately say “Uh oh. Let’s clean it up!” and then they’d clean it up together. One day at drop-off, I observed this “behavior”. All of the staff were busy removing kids from wheelchairs, getting them settled, etc. Sabrina was looking around the room, obviously checking everything out, wanting some attention, and deciding what her next move would be. I knew what was coming next. She grabbed a basket of items, held it up like she was going to drop it, and said “Uh oh!”.
No response from anyone. She did it again. No response. Finally this time she dropped the basket. Toys went everywhere. Staff immediately ran to her. “Sabrina, we can’t dump items! Let’s clean them up together!” Sabrina was thrilled. It didn’t take an expert to see what was happening. I suggested to the staff that perhaps they ignore the dumping instead of giving it attention. “Oh no, we can’t ignore it. She needs to know that it’s not ok and be responsible for cleaning it up.” Um, OK.
I advocated for a BSP, which amazingly enough, she didn’t have. Sure enough, once the Behaviorist looked at the reason behind her dumping, they very quickly realized that it was an extremely effective way for her to get attention. So they wrote in her BSP that her dumping behavior was to be completely ignored. A week or two later, the dumping stopped.
BSP plans are very effective at shaping behaviors.
Second of all, I personally know children without disabilities who have such “negative behaviors”. I’ve witnessed “the whole class stopping” while the teacher manages the behavior of a child without a disability. This isn’t something that is limited to only children with disabilities.
The article also asked: “I also wondered whether repeated exposure to this behaviour promoted understanding and tolerance or, alternatively, led to stereotypes that people with disabilities are difficult and disruptive?”
Whoa. This one got to me. It sounds like she has her own bias here.
A class’s response to exposure to something in large part depends on what they’re seeing the teacher and other staff model. To suggest that we should limit exposure to kids with disabilities so that the typical children don’t develop negative stereotypes seems harmful for a variety of reasons. There are plenty of children who’s behavior I don’t want my typical child to emulate. Would I suggest that the other kids be removed so that my daughter is only around children who’s behavior I am happy with? First of all, that would be impossible. And second of all, I don’t want my children to live in a bubble. Having them exposed to other behaviors and attitudes allows us to have conversions about topics that are important to discuss. Questions like: How did you feel about what happened? How did it make you feel? Why do you think it happened? What could have done differently? How do you think that child felt during that time? These experiences are such a great opportunity for developing problem-solving and empathy. Our children don’t live in a bubble, nor should they.
If anything, I’ve seen children who are used to be around my own daughter have a great ability to be understanding. They understand that she can easily get frustrated because she doesn’t understand something and has limited ability to communicate, and they have empathy for the fact that this must be difficult.
I wonder if instead of teaching us to all live together, we are teaching our kids to send others who are difficult “away”. And what about adults with disabilities? Should we also keep them away from the community if they have behaviors that we’re uncomfortable with? I really feel that this is a slippery slope.
Lots to think about here. Feel free to chime in with your thoughts. Stay tuned for Part 2!
