Inclusion model in public schools must be revisited

The original inclusion model for public schools in 1997 was the result of something being forced upon us by the federal government, and it likely contained some aspects of crisis management.

It failed for many reasons. First and foremost, it was a philosophical concept that didn’t fit the reality of the classroom situation. Our education system was designed to educate students at increasing higher grade-levels. Inclusion was based primarily on accommodation.

Inclusion slammed into our school system like a social tsunami, ignoring grade-level standards and overloading teachers. Students performing at grade level were the big losers. Standards were watered down and education slowly suffocated, one grade-level at a time.

Honours courses began to disappear shortly after inclusion reached our high schools, replaced by “soft courses” to clear the system of phantom students or students who functioned below grade-levels, and promoted via education’s version of automatic assumption.

One of the worst problems to emerge within inclusive classrooms has been disruptive and dangerous behaviour (students with mental health issues).

Last spring, I was approached by several parents who related a situation that involved an elementary classroom, with a number of students with behaviour problems. The situation was so extreme the class had to be evacuated numerous times.

Since then, other parents have told me they also had children in similar stressful elementary classrooms during the past several years and believe their children now have anxiety issues because of it. Obviously, this isn’t an isolated situation.

The first link in the learning chain is interest. The second is attentiveness. How many times did that extreme behaviour break those links? Since these are early elementary classrooms (the learn-to-read years), how many students leave grade-three with reading difficulties, hit the fourth-grade reading slump, struggle with all subjects and fall further behind throughout their school life? How many learning opportunities were lost? How did that impact children who had attention deficit disorders? How many anxiety issues did it generate?

The present inclusive legislation obviously hasn’t served the mental health needs of the students with the behaviour problems or the educational needs of the other students in such classrooms. Students with extreme behaviour problems are observed by various professionals and their behaviour is well-documented, but nothing can be done without parental agreement.

The present legislation obviously tipped the scales in favour of accommodation over education when it enables one or two children with serious behaviour problems, and their parents, to seriously impede the education of the other 20-21 children in a classrooms? What could be wrong with that scenario? I wonder why test scores and attendance plummeted and haven’t rebounded?

The new legislation must eliminate such situations and again make education the number one priority for all. If the new model is to succeed, it must be in a 21-century classroom environment with a much higher level of individualization and flexibility. Surely, we must now realize that inclusion is incompatible with the “one-sizefits-all” model.

High-school students have individual timetables. Why don’t upper elementary, middle and junior high students have individual timetables, for at least part of the school day? Isn’t it time to use creatively scheduling to provide the flexibility needed for regular, individual or small group instruction, remediation, mentoring and/or counselling?

“If we always do what we always did, we’ll get what we always got,” African-American comedian Jackie “Moms” Mabley. How true! Al Moore Glace Bay