Look out, I'm incensed!

What do you think Professor Plum would have to say about the lovely flyer that we got in our mail today? If you haven't received it (and odds are, if you're not a teacher in Delaware, you'd have no idea what I'm talking about), here are the first 2 sentences (emphasis mine):

"What would you say about a school where all teachers were given the opportunity to fully teach all students? Where students were not placed in segregated settings because their needs were different than the majority of students?"

Isn't it nice that we're being "given the opportunity?" I love how they put the spin on total inclusion (for the layman, that's leaving special ed students in the regular classroom) - like they've been withholding some kind of privilege. And how about the fact that students are put in "segregated settings" (love the civil rights language, by the way) because they need more intensive help than the regular classroom teacher can provide and not bore the rest of the class that's learning at the expected pace? It's not as if they don't ever return once they've caught up to the rest of the class. I've seen it happen.

Listen to some more (once again, emphasis mine):

"This relatively new knowledge substantiates what many excellent educators have "known" for decades: that allowing for learner differences does not give students unfair advantages - learning is not a win lose situation, but gives teachers the opening to "level the playing field" of education so that all students have the best opportunity to learn."

Okay, so riddle me this: how is a playing field level if I have honors students in with special ed students? I would think that particular playing field could be used for the Moguls course at the next Olympics. And just exactly HOW would one TEACHER with such a class be able to level that playing field? That is an awesome responsibility, and I mean that literally. And you've gotta love how they've spun the line about subtantiating what excellent teachers have known for decades. Like we're wet-behind-the-ears, inexperienced know-nothings if we disagree with their theory.

Now let's talk about the rest of the statement - in particular about "allowing for learner differences does not give students unfair advantages" because, to be frank, this theory is not advantageous for any learner. To address what they are trying to say, if I allow for the fact that Johnny learns best by listening and that Suzie learns best by seeing visuals, then fine, I'm not giving Johnny or Suzie and unfair advantage when I present the material both ways. What they're talking about, though, is far more radical then just allowing for J & S's learning differences, and they know it. It's not just different "learning styles" they're talking about here - it's learning disabilities. Today's special education students have all kinds of accomodations - moreso than those of regular education students with special accomodation plans. As a relative of people with learning disabilities and veterans of the state's special education program, I wholeheartedly oppose what they're trying to do as not being in the best interest of the children that we serve. The beaurocrats are just trying to soft-soap us by telling us that "excellent educators have know [this] for decades" and implying that if we don't agree with it, then we're not excellent educators.

Which is a load of horsefeathers.

I am so sick of the academic utopians spouting theory from their ivory towers. They should come down into the real world and do more than merely observe a classroom. They should have to teach in the US public school system for at least 10 years before they're allowed to start a PhD in Education. Then, at their dissertation defense, there should be a panel of 50 teachers, one from each state, that critique their dissertation and explore its ramifications for their state. Only if they've proved themselves worthy to the people that will one day carry out their plans, should their PhD be approved.

I won't hold my breath, though.