SeekingSolace[dot]Net

((If you like this article, please go vote for it at: Section 504 and why it makes me angry on ThisIsBy.Us.))

I’ve got to say, for a liberal, I can be quite conservative sometimes.

Here I am, minding my own business, reading my Educational Psychology textbook. The class, despite all the protestations of the teacher, is essentially just another methods class. We talked about most of this stuff in my first Curriculum & Instruction class.

Anyway, I’m reading a chapter entitled “Learner Differences and Learning Needs.” Herein, I shall quote directly (my citation to the textbook is the last part of the blockquote below):

Examples of Accommodations Under Section 504
The types of accommodations that can be written into a Section 504 plan are almost without limit. Some accommodation may relate to physical changes in the learning environment (for example, air filters are installed to remove allergens). However, many students who have Section 504 plans have functional impairments related to their learning or behavior, and their needs are somewhat similar to those of students with disabilities. The following is a sample of instructional accommodations that could be incorporated into a Section 504 plan:

• Seat the student nearest to where the teacher does most of his/her instruction.
• Have the student sit next to a peer who can help as needed.
• Seat the student away from the distractions of doorways or windows.
• Fold assignments in half so that the student is less overwhelmed by the quantity of work.
• Make directions telegraphic, that is, concise and clear.
• Allow use of a calculator or tape recorder.
• Use voice recognition software on the computer for written assignments.
• Mark right answers instead of wrong ones.
• Send a set of textbooks to be left at home so that the student does not have to remember to bring books from school.
• Provide books on tape so that the student can listen to assignments instead of reading them.

If you review these items, you can see that many of them just make good instructional sense. They are effective instructional practices that help learners with special needs succeed in your classroom.

---

Source: From Including Students with Special Needs: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers, 3/e by Marilyn Friend & William D. Bursuck. Published by Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Copyright © 2002 by Pearson Education. Adapted by permission of the publisher.

---

Woolfolk, Anita. Educational Psychology. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2007.

The book goes on to state that, “Two major groups are considered for Section 504 accommodations: students with medical or health needs such as diabetes, drug addiction, severe allergies, communicable diseases, temporary disabilities resulting from accidents, or alcoholism, and students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, if they are not already covered by IDEIA.”

I’m not even going to talk about folding the paper in half and giving students an extra set of textbooks so they won’t have to worry about forgetting theirs at home. That’s too easy.

Listen, two of my brothers have been diagnosed with ADHD. I still don’t know how I feel about the overdiagnosis of the disease, and frankly, I still think it’s a convenient excuse for bad parenting, bad teaching, lazy students, under-challenged students, and other various problems that could be solved with hard work on somebody’s part, rather than a pill. But giving a student an audiobook alternative to his/her reading assignments is simply doing a disservice to the student, even those students who may legitimately have chemical imbalances that make it very difficult for them to succeed at school despite their best efforts. Giving children easy ways out of education can in no way benefit them. And most of these kids are probably receiving other forms of treatment for ADHD, so Ritalin (or any other of a variety of treatments) in addition to no reading assignments cannot possibly be a helpful situation. What about preparing them for the world? Will a student with ADHD be able to go to a state university and get their textbooks on audiobook? Or get into the “real world” and get company memos and manuals in audiobook form?

The conservative right is pushing for literacy and “proficiency” in every subject for every single child ever put through the public school, no matter their Socio-Economic Status, their learning abilities, their previous knowledge and schooling, or their school district. They want to standardize everything and turn everyone into barely competent (but literate!) robots who can read and do math to grade level but not much else.

The liberal left is attempting to make every child’s course through school as easy as is possible, reducing all amounts of stress and making sure nobody feels left out or picked on or any different from anyone else in any way. They want every child individually educated; one student hates to read, so instead they get audiobooks. Another student feels bad at getting an F, despite having put no effort into the assigment; therefore, we grade only in positives, marking on the paper only when something good has been done. According to this philosophy, no value judgment should be passed on anyone ever.

Ideally, I believe we shouldn’t pass judgment on people based on their ability to do geometry or read Chaucer, especially if they are happy in their life. Mechanics are far more brilliant and meticulous than I am, though some of them have never seen the inside of a high school, having gone straight into the work force, and may not even be able to read; but they keep our society moving. There is value inherent in everyone, as long as they work to their potential. And forcing children through a system that is only concerned with the Almighty Standardized Test Score will accomplish nothing but the “mediocritizing” of America. But pampering children to make their lives easy teaches them that they don’t have to work to their potential; they can skim by and get help at every step of the way. This accomplishes the same mediocrity by continuing to allow students to do the least required of them.

So where is the middle ground?

Obviously, there are children with disabilities who legitimitely need extra education and special considerations made to make sure that they learn, and to help them work to their potential. And there are gifted students who currently coast through school without the appropriate challenges to their intelligence, leaving them underachieving and unmotivated (I would know…I was one of them). And yes, students should be dealt with as individually as is possible to ensure that they receive a good, solid education.

But I believe the middle ground lies in the word, “expectations.” I believe that we, as educators, parents and members of society, should EXPECT our students to do their best. We should not coddle them, or overwork them, but we should give them enough assistance to be able to do things on their own. First of all, self-efficacy is a large factor in how much students learn (from what I have been taught). The belief that we can do something, in large part, determines whether or not we can. As ridiculous as it may seem, the saying plastered on motivational merchandise ad nauseum, “Whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right,” is true. Therefore, students should be taught to think they can. They should not be taught that if it’s too hard, you can get it in audiobook. Nor should they be taught that if you feel bad because your spelling is not great, you can use voice recognition software and never have to write again.

They should be taught that the red marks on the page show you where there’s room for improvement, and that’s okay. If we don’t grow and improve, we’re stagnant, and that is most definitely not good for society. We should be challenged to improve ourselves at all times, and if that means a few red marks or the occasional well-deserved “F,” then so be it.

Post-Script:
My fourth-grade teacher, I’m sure, would be horrified to see how many sentences I began with “and” or “but” in this article. The retribution will likely be swift.