A World Without 'Special Needs' The 'Naked' Truth(1)
Darrell Wills and Paul Cain
There comes a time when the explanations of the past give way to a new view of thinking about a subject. Before being reached, people are unable to SEE the subject for they are caste in the mould of the history of their forefathers have passed them. On the subject of treatment of children with individuality, which has been defined as difference, we are long past time for such a new view of thinking. We set forth here on a journey towards a new I.Q.: an inclusion quotient to explain a new way of perceiving individuality, children and difference. The new I.Q. is about a world without special needs.
We see the field cringing, wiggling and contorting in variegated ways in an effort to rid the language of the term 'special needs'(2) without being able to fully explicate why. We raise this initial discussion about all of the 'disability' labels and how they have shaped our minds to believe them, so that we can hopefully move beyond the labels to a full reconceptualisation of the notion of individual difference in humanity rather than continuing to "dance around the edges" of the language of segregation.
Our speculations are that the 'cringe factor' that we sometimes feel when we use language of the old paradigm may be a brief awakening during an otherwise unconscious perpetuation of the belief in the "cloak of the emperor".(3) It may be that we should 'listen' to our 'cringes' and awaken to the possibility of recovery from this dimension of segregation. (4)
An intricate and intimate understanding of the needs of children is fundamental to all educational activity. Unfortunately, the notion of 'special need' has seriously distracted our attention over the past half century and created what we believe are multiple layers of "clothing on a naked emperor".(5)
The notion of 'special needs' was born in the hopes of the 70's and at least partially designed as a progressive move to cleanse the language and conceptualisations that were rightly thought to be devaluing, crass and dysfunctional (e.g. idiot, mental retard, spastic).
Unfortunately, the 'clean terminology of 'special' muddied our fidelity with the new 'carriers' of the new 'special' label. 'Special' processes were conflated into the needs of children in such a way that we began seeing 'special needs' in children who really shared only the common needs of their human family. We turned what we did to them into a "special need" and, forever after, segregated in our minds those who are 'special' from those who are typical. In an unconscious process, trying to be nice, we had once again transacted segregation.
'Special' processes and 'special' places were invented to meet the 'special needs' of 'special' children. A whole new field was woven from the "cloth in the emperor's cloak" - the field of 'special' education.
In other words, when we mistakenly identified the children’s needs with processes that might go some way in addressing their needs(6), we created a dual system of education that only makes sense if some children actually have ‘special’ or different needs.
We must therefore ask: - Can one be human and not share the same human needs for love, acceptance, continuity of our important relationships, respect and esteem from others: - to be fully included as a valuable member of a family, a community and a society; to have personal skills so that we can make contributions which we and others value; an understanding of the world; a means of communication; a means of being heard; human relationships; a sense of belonging; as well as (of course) oxygen, water, food, sleep, good health, protection from the elements, physical and emotional safety, protection from neglect, abuse, exploitation and protection from abandonment?
We must also ask: - Are there any needs that are 'special' to only one person or group?
We believe the answer to both of these critical questions is: - no.
Of course it has been posited throughout history that some children might not actually be human or are less than human or are at least not important humans; however we believe these notions are vile notions without substance.
Therefore, if all humans share common needs and all children are human; there is no such thing as children with 'special' needs. Whilst this line of logic is confronting and it is possibly shocking to see the 'Emperor' standing naked, it is an essential first step towards understanding an essential building block of inclusive education.
Inclusive education hinges upon our understanding of the commonality of human need. It is of the first order that we see each student as a human being and elemental that we conceptualise each student’s needs in common with those of the human family.(7) Until we are able to see this we have nothing but diversion from inclusion in the human family to offer them.
Does this mean that the field of 'special education' holds nothing but a patina of truth? No, it simply means that good education is good education. It means that anything that is designed only for 'special children' will be unlikely to pass muster as sound educational practice for any children.
Does this mean that children with 'disability' labels don't have extra needs? Yes, it means that their needs are the same as all other children. Of course such students’ needs for access to the physical, social and curricular landscapes of our schools and communities may be harder to meet, but their need is the same.
We believe that once we are able to see past 'special', we are able to see children - children of the rainbow of human diversity - whose needs are common and thus commonly met by people of the culture with enough will and enough skill to match the known pedagogies with verity and artistic design.
We believe that labelling of all sorts, carried forward from the old paradigm of segregation, serve merely to reinforce stereotyping and what follows is historically a habit of segregative practices. We therefore believe one of the critical steps the culture must take in moving towards an inclusive society is to create a classroom without labels. As our dear Marsha Forest once said to us, "Label jars, not kids".
The new I.Q. applied to "special needs" is a large step away from the sometimes fraudulent science that led us over the past century to use the old I.Q. to identify, stratify, segregate, congregate, sterilise, victimise, and insidiously cull millions of unwanted people from our midst. Let me call this collection "the killing thoughts" for that is what they are – thoughts that such children should be dead, would be better dead, then physically and socially isolated from the rest of us – a sort of social death. These are tough statements. We have a tough history. These are some tough truths against which, we most posit a post-eugenics position.
Endnotes
- Reprinted with permission from v16/4'03 • interaction
- "... a word should be said about the concept of 'special educational needs'.... Firstly, the term may perpetuate the binary divide of special and regular under new labels. Secondly, it is not always helpful in resolving educational difficulties and may in itself present a barrier to the development of inclusive practice. Thirdly, it may run the risk of encouraging educators to attribute difficulties in education exclusively to deficits in learners, rather than to identify the problem in the interaction of impairments, disadvantage, etc. with the learning environment and culture. In the special needs scenario, the burden is thus often placed on the child to adjust to the school, rather than vice versa. Finally, the concept may excuse educators from changing their practice to accommodate the diversity of learners’ needs, an essential characteristic of inclusive education." Lynch, J. Thematic Studies. Inclusion in Education: The Participation of Disabled Learners. World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 26-28 2000. Education for All 2000 Assessment. UNESCO. Also see Nithi Muthukrishna. Transforming professional development programmes into an inclusive education system. In Meeting Special and Diverse Educational Needs: making Inclusive Education a Reality. Ed. Savolainen, H. et al. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Helsinki 2000.
- Hans Christian Anderson (1837). The story of the emperor with no clothes. A child shouts that the emperor has no clothes on. In the fairy tale, that is the end of the story. However, things do not work that way in the real world. In the real world, the emperor asks his retinue, "am I not properly dressed?" And no one dares to say no. They all assure him, "Yes Your Majesty, you are properly dressed." The emperor even seeks the opinion of somebody on the other side of the globe living in a white building, and the person says, "Yes Your Majesty, you are always properly dressed." This person is even prepared to assist the emperor in convincing others that the emperor is indeed decently attired. This is what has been happening with the notion of ‘special needs’. Truth must prevail at some time. If we permit truth to be recognised and acknowledged, everyone feels more comfortable because they are no longer forced to deny reality.
- There are others whose prevarications apply the inclusion terminology without changing Segregative practice – special kids simply become inclusion kids.
- See note 2.
- e.g. children need speech therapy, children need Ritalin, children need special educators, etc. These are processes or strategies, not needs. As Maslow said wisely so long ago, if "all you have is a hammer everything may look like a nail"…
- "For students with disabilities, the critical challenge will be how we view and treat difference – as an abnormality or as an aspect of the human condition." As Minow (1990) points out, people with disabilities, like women and members of minority groups, feel that "from their own perspective ... [they] may not be abnormal; they may instead introduce more varied and more inclusive definitions of what is normal. Reframing social experience to transcend the difference dilemma means challenging the presumption that either one is the same or one is different, either one is normal or one is not" (p. 95). Lipsky, D. and Gartner, A. Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review; Cambridge; Winter 1996
Site Map | Contact | ©1993- in:press
