PJ Media

My nephew is (now mildly) autistic, and benefited from his parents’ early and aggressive efforts to limit his “monster’s” control over his live. Research into and strict adherence to a special diet made a huge difference in his ability to function. Intensive help during his pre-school years allowed him to be mainstreamed, at first with a full-time aide. With many neurological problems, I think that early intervention makes a much bigger difference than later remedial efforts.

I saw my nephew perform in a play with other students in his second-grade class last year. He sometimes seemed to lose focus, but still pretty much “stayed with the group”. He plays baseball and also last year performed with other fiddlers at a benefit concert for an autism association, organized by (and featuring) his mother. He had not even been brought to her previous benefit concerts, when his condition would have made him an object of sympathy. He still needs a lot of special help, especially with homework. But he will grow up to be productive, rather than a life-long drain on society.

On the other hand, I have also substitute-taught in a classroom with profoundly impaired children. There was about a 2.5 to one ratio of students to teachers and aides in this classroom. I think it is good that they are on the same campus with “normal” children, but none of these particular children would have benefitted much from being in a mainstream classroom, and attempting to mainstream them would have decreased focus on education for other children. In some cases, it would have been medically (or in other ways) dangerous to try to mainstream them.

I don’t know how long intensive educational efforts remain helpful to students like these. I like the idea that they are now seen as part of society, but I wonder if there is not a point where intensive focus on educational assessments, when little or no progress is made, makes their lives less happy.

I think that much of the resentment toward special education comes from the way some parents use special education laws as a legal cudgel. Where I have seen resentment by teachers and parents, it is not really clear whether the child’s impairment stems from nature or nurture. Often, it is probably a combination of the two. It seems that the parents who are continuing to contribute to their childrens’ impairment through their own behavior are the most aggressive and demanding of the schools.

One example from a mainstream middle-school classroom where I substituted was a boy who suddenly jumped up and started running around on the other student’s desks. He also “acted out” in other ways which were highly disconcerting and which suggested to me that he could become physically aggressive at any time. He seemed to be carefully gauging his disruptive behavior to make sure tht he didn’t cross the line into actually endangering other students (which could have triggered his removal from the classroom). The other students reassured me that this was typical of his behavior, but it shut down focus on mathematics. They seemed to accept this, too. They didn’t take mathematics very serously. How much the learning environment contributed to their apathy I can’t say.

This boy comes from a “problem family” in the community, with a brother convicted of murder and other relatives in and out of jail a lot. I can imagine why both parents and teachers would be worried about “normal” students being hurt by him, either academically or (especially when he’s older) physically. Mainstreaming becomes an issue in cases like these.

As a side note, I am also dismayed by the jargon-filled assessment reports, required for each special-needs child. They are intended to help parents understand if their children are making progress. But the vocabulary is so obtuse that clear assessments are difficult. And translation of this specialized jargon into other languages so parents can understand the reports is a real problem.