Helping one and hurting many in the name of equality

Posted by Marc Hodak on June 25, 2007 under Unintended consequences | Read the First Comment

Today’s WSJ had this story about the effects of “mainstreaming” children with learning disabilities. The original idea was that such children learn more and socialize better if they are placed in regular classes with ‘normal’ kids. Notwithstanding the weak empirical basis for this idea, those responsible for imposing mainstreaming on our schools clearly did not consider the collateral damage it might cause to the rest of the kids’ learning, or to the morale of teachers trying to educate them all. In fact, the article points out that:

the rush to mainstream disabled students is alienating teachers and driving some of the best from the profession. It has become a little-noticed but key factor behind teacher turnover, which experts say largely accounts for a shortage of qualified teachers in the U.S.

As with many social experiments with unintended consequences, this one has its basis in a federal law with a cute name–IDEA, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act–which required schools to bring disabled kids into regular classes.

Despite this federal mandate, mainstreaming was slow to take off. That’s because many districts tried it and quickly saw the problems it would cause. In Pennsylvania, it took a lawsuit by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia to get that state to finally push “inclusion” in a serious way. Public interest lawyers have little patience for the real-world results of their ideas, and little tolerance for results that get in the way of their agenda. They want equality, and they want it now.

Now that the challenges of mainstreaming have become a key reason for teachers leaving their jobs, you’d think the proponents might be having second thoughts. Instead, they blame this failure on a lack of resources to support the teachers. Most school districts have tough choices when it comes to finances. Public interest lawyers, of course, aren’t there to help make the trade-offs, and don’t believe in having to make trade-offs, besides. Apparently, $11,485 per student is not enough. They want equality, they want it now, and they want you to pay for it, regardless the cost.

After all is said and done, it’s likely that the kids who were intended to be most helped by this law, the most problematic cases, have likely derived no net, positive benefits from inclusion. I’d love to see the studies. You’d think that serious policy-makers would, too.