Specialized Programs Are Not Automatically Segregation
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder discusses how specialized educational programs can serve students well without constituting segregation, while acknowledging the need for careful implementation.
Key Takeaways
- Specialized doesn't mean segregated - Programs designed to meet specific student needs are a legitimate part of the educational continuum
- But vigilance is needed - Schools must ensure that specialized programs don't become dumping grounds for students of particular demographics
- Intent and implementation matter - The difference between helpful specialization and harmful segregation lies in how programs are designed and monitored
Transcript
Segregation is a really loaded term in special education.
And I see people using this concept in two different ways that I do want to comment on because I did a video on inclusion recently and how some students' needs cannot be met just through inclusion.
Some students need specialized programs.
And there were two reactions to that that I cannot agree with.
On the one hand, some people were arguing for Yeah, segregation.
They're saying anybody who has an IEP needs to be in a different school, different program entirely, regardless of their individual situation.
I don't agree with that, and that's illegal under U.S.
law because every student is entitled to be educated in their least restrictive environment.
And for a lot of kids, that means their IEP goals and their educational needs can be met in an inclusion setting, hopefully with support.
Now, a lot of teachers pointed out that part of the idea of inclusion is that there is support in the general classroom and that support is not always provided so you know obviously we've got some work to do there On the other extreme, there are people who call anything that's not full inclusion segregation.
And they know what they're doing here, right?
They're using a term from the civil rights movement and from, you know, the history of our country and other countries where there was legal segregation, but it wasn't based on meeting people's needs, right?
Like, we're talking about something different with special education.
I think a specialized program that is tailor-made to meet the needs of a student is not the same as just segregation.
I mean, come on.
Now, there is still a concern for having the student in a general classroom as much as possible, right?
I think those are tough decisions and decisions that IEP teams need to make, but I don't think it's helpful to just shut down the discussion about inclusion by saying, well, anything other than full inclusion is segregation.
No, that is kind of a cheap rhetorical trick to invoke that term and invoke all the feelings that go with racial segregation from throughout history.
I think we've got to be able to talk about what this kid needs educationally, right?
What is the best placement for them knowing that it is probably neither extreme in most cases, right?
They're going to need some support because they do have some special needs and they're going to have some opportunities for inclusion.
but i think we've got to you know tone down the rhetoric a little bit about this and and not have these extreme positions that oh everybody needs to be segregated or everything is segregation and segregation you know is of course off limits but let me know what you are thinking about this and let me know what you are seeing as far as support for inclusion because i think that's The other big thing here is we can't just say we have inclusion and then not support it.
If inclusion is the right placement for a student, that student is still going to need support and teachers need support in meeting students' needs in inclusive settings.
Let me know what you think.