I'm recording from my living room in beautiful Marietta, Georgia, you're listening to the thinking cluesive podcast episode 10 brought to you by Brooks publishing company. I'm your host in Vegas. Today I will be speaking with Cheryl Jorgensen, one of the premier experts on inclusive education with over 30 years in the field. I had the pleasure of visiting with her one evening in January of this year, Cheryl and I discuss why it has taken so long for inclusive education to catch on in the United States, and what needs to happen to break the barrier for it to become part of best practices for education. She even gives me advice on whether I need to quit my job or not. You will not want to miss her surprising answer. So without further ado, let's get to the age inclusive podcast. Thanks for listening. I would like to welcome to the think inclusive podcast Dr. Cheryl M. Jorgensen. She was a faculty researcher at the University of New Hampshire's Institute on Disability focusing on inclusive education for students with autism, intellectual and other developmental disabilities from 1985 until the spring of 2011. She is now in semi retirement and able to focus on the work about what she is most passionate students specific consultation, Team professional development, school wide systems, chains, policy, advocacy and writing. She particularly likes working with students with Down Syndrome and their educational teams. She is author of many, many books and articles, almost too many to count, looking at your CV. I am very honored and pleased to have Dr. Jorgenson here with us. Thank you for joining us today.
Oh, you're very welcome. I'm happy to do it.
Well, let's go ahead and get right in. You've been doing this your work for many years. And it looks like almost 30 years actually. And there's been, you know, a lot of progress made in schools in the public schools. As far as inclusive education. But as you've noted before in other interviews and other writings, it's kind of piecemeal all over the country, there isn't really a systematic change going about in the United States. Do you think that we should be further along, you know, F 30 years out in providing inclusive schools for all children? Or is this kind of what we have always expected?
Absolutely, yes. I think we should be further along. But I, I can understand why we're not. And I, I've been thinking about this question, Tim, to try to really hone in on why I think the progress has been as slow as it is. And so I can share some of those ideas with you. And I think when you hear those ideas, they'll also sort of provide an answer to what could we do to make the progress go more quickly and more effectively. So I think the primary reason why we're not further along with Inclusive Education, since, you know, sort of started in the US in the early 1980s, is because we still have two separate systems of education system that we call general education, that's for general ed students, and then this whole enterprise and system of special education. And along with those two systems, have evolved what people think should be different curricula, different teacher skills and certification standards, different assessments, different instructional methods. And and so all of those differences within these two systems, keep perpetuating the notion that students with disabilities and particularly I'm speaking of students with more intensive support needs, need something different and they can benefit from that general education curriculum. And so and part of the system of special education that's evolved over the past For almost 40 years now, is what I'm sure you're familiar with in many of your listeners, is the principle of the least restrictive environment. And some people think the least restrictive environment means inclusion, when really it doesn't. And it's sort of the quote from the federal special education law is that students with disabilities should be in the least restrictive environment in which they can meet the goals of their IEP. But the decision of what the least restrictive environment is for each child is left up to that child's individual education plan team. And there are still vast differences, certainly from state to state, but even within a state, from school to school, from district to district, and sometimes, even within the same school district, there are radical differences in how teams make those placement decisions, even from school to school. And the least restrictive environment principle, although it was based on the idea that, and certainly we can support the idea that children need a very individualized approach to their education. LRE, which is just the abbreviation for least restrictive environment continues to justify segregated education for some students. So I think there's sort of two separate systems of education, the, you know, the components of those systems, which still sort of say, different for kids with disabilities, and particularly that least restrictive environment principal, mean, that, for example, in the state of Hawaii, and I'm not picking on Hawaii, I'm just kind of reflecting the data. About 3.9% of students with intellectual disabilities spend 80% or more of their day in a regular class, compared to Iowa, where 60% of students with intellectual disabilities spend 80% more of their day in a regular class. And so it just prompts us to ask the question, are those kids in Hawaii, all that differ from the kids in Iowa, and in fact, they're, they're not, they're not different enough to justify that, that huge discrepancy. And there are many other states that that kind of follow that pattern, you know, tons of states that are in the single percentages, many states that are in the 40s 50s and 60s, but it calls into question, whether the least restrictive environment principle is really sort of a real thing that that can be done in a scientific way, consistently from student to student in district to district.
That's, that's an interesting point. Because I've, I've spoken with other people about that, about this idea of, of LRE. And whether we need something different in the federal law, to really realize the, you know, full on authentic inclusion. So for what I'm hearing you saying is that LRE actually, is holding us back as as a country. Because there isn't a real strict standard on how we develop that, you know, that concept of, of how of the least restrictive environment because, you know, even in my own district, there's, there's a wide interpretation of what that what that is. So I can see if we had something more specific, you know, that that would that would help. Yeah.
And the other thing is, there's no, either incentive, or there's no incentive for states to improve their placement of kids in in more more percentage of the time in the general class. Nor is there a disincentive from the federal government sort of accountability purposes. I mean, the federal government will, every state is allowed to kind of identify their own statistical goal. So the state of Hawaii could say, our goal is that next year 4% of our students with intellectual disabilities are in regular class 80% of the time, the hereafter it's 4.1%, the year after it's 4.2. And as long as they meet that, the federal government doesn't ever say no, you're really behind the curve, you know, you really need to catch up to Iowa. There's just no national kind of policy. A legal policy that translates into, you know, everyday educational policy that will move, you know, those states along. And if you sort of go historical data, it could take us 100 years. For, for most students, if we're, if we keep going at the same rate, you know, for most students to be spending most of their time in general ed. And yet, I understand parents who feel like that, that, that their influence over their child's placement may be one of the only sort of sources of influence that they have, you know, and parents feel like if their child's getting a substandard education, one of the only things they can do is say, I want my child out of district. So it's a dilemma. I wish I had, you know, a great alternative for LRE. But I just know, it's really, really standing away really a barrier.
Now, I wonder, do you think that school districts are actually added, you know, or actual actually not benefiting from this concept of NRA? Because, because of what you're talking about, about about parents, because? Because when you go to the meeting, what what the school district is concerned about, in my opinion, is not getting sued, you know, not going to due process. And, you know, and this happens in districts all over the country, I hear it all the time, you know, anecdotally, of course, but it's the parents that really advocate for their child to be included in Gen Ed, or, you know, XYZ related service. Those parents are, you know, the squeaky wheels are the ones who are getting, you know, what they feel like they need for their children, whereas, the parents who either don't know how to advocate for the child or just maybe are indifferent, or, you know, whatever reason? They don't. And so you have, there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy or double standards, you know, there are double standards within every district, because why is, you know, so and so getting this service or being included with, you know, this service, and, you know, the other person is not, and that I believe creates tons of mistrust. Oh, it does. And no wonder why parents are so defensive when they come to when they come to meetings.
Yeah, you know, you've you've, there's a lot that we can unpack from what you just said, I, you know, I go into meetings, where I'm consulting with schools, whether it's the schools, asked me or the parents have asked me, I go in trying to presume presume everyone's positive intentions. Because I just did my role. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not the person that's, you know, there to hold their feet to the fire of crossing every T and dotting every I around regulations. I'm advocating for the child for best practices. But I absolutely agree that there's such a Oh, inequity, in what kids the quality of education that that kids are getting, even within one school building. And, and if when it comes down to it, it's often the parents either knowledge, or their advocacy, or their own sort of resources that they bring to, to advocating for their child that can make the difference. I was in a meeting the other day. family wants their third grader who has autism to be in general education. I had done a consultation and you know, and given them 30 pages worth of suggestions for how to do it. And I went to the meeting with the mom, and there were 14 professionals around the table and the mom and you know, and she was highly educated, she does advocacy work herself, and yet couldn't or didn't know how to sort of argue against those 14 professionals that were in the room. Right.
Yes. I wanted to talk a little bit about I guess incentives to change because it seems to me that the only thing that school districts are concerned about are well, most anyways budgets and and not only budget It's but money that, you know, is coming from race to the top, which is tied to the two Common Core implementation and test scores. I mean, that seems to be the major conversation like if you open up Education Week, right, we're not talking about inclusion we're talking about. We're talking about test scores
for standards. Yeah. And the assessments that go with those, right? Yeah. And, again, I think I mean, here, I can point to really just a lack of knowledge about what it is that helps students with disabilities achieve. There's a history of belief, that and some early research that said, the only way children with disabilities, any child with disabilities can achieve to high standards is if they're taught in a separate setting with a separate curriculum with, you know, specially trained teachers were in the last 20 years, we really do have some evidence that students with disabilities, even students with the most complex disabilities, can learn and achieve to higher levels within General Education. But that piece of knowledge is just doesn't seem to have enough power to cause people to change. It's more complex, it's that, you know, each one of those 14 professionals around the table, as I sort of, you know, learned a little bit about them, they came through their educational career and their teacher training programs. At a time, when people weren't even thinking about inclusion. They themselves don't know, people with disabilities, as you know, as colleagues as friends, unless they haven't have a particular family experience. And then it's interesting how those people's attitudes are different. So it's more than just giving people knowledge, because that's what I spend a lot of my time doing, and nobody sort of changes just for that reason, right? You know, it takes a shift in attitude, it takes a principal of the school pa L of the school, who is, you know, a vibrant, persuasive and firm instructional leader that says, this is the way that we're going to go takes lots of professional development and relearning for people. And it takes the knowledge of at the local school level, how we can take the general ed resources, the people, the money, the you know, equipment, and the special ed resources, and just put them all in the general ed classroom to benefit all students. So it's, it's more it's more than just the budget question. And it's more than just concerned about standards and assessment question. It's just a lot of historical beliefs and practices that are very stubborn and difficult to unseat.
That, that brings up a question that I had not previewed with you. Because what often gets tied together when we talk about advocacy for people with disabilities, is kind of the parallels between the civil rights movement and the disability rights movement. And so, a lot of what, you know, the people that I know, that are in the disability rights movement, you know, use that use that kind of language a lot. You know, I mean, we use segregation, right? I mean, that, that, that is a civil rights term. But there are, you know, do you see, do you see them as the same thing? Or do you see them differently? The reason why I'm asking is, I've always seen it, it gets in principle as the same thing, because you have, you know, people with disabilities and people you know, a different races being discriminated against, simply because they have, you know, those characteristics. But, you know, a, a, you know, a Mexican, you know, which which I am Mexican American, uh, you know, a person with brown skin, being discriminated against, and a person with an intellectual disability being discriminated against, or at least not being, you know, allowed, you know, quote, unquote, to be in a general education room. They are inherently different because that person with, you know, brown skin, let's say if they're, if they're a typically developing person, is no different than anybody else in that classroom. But a person with an intellectual disability is inherently different, not less, of course, but different. And so what what do you think? About that, in that conversation, or, you know, and kind of comparing the idea of disability rights and civil rights. Does that make sense? Yes,
I think they're the same, I think the differences that you pointed out, but it's sort of a different situation, discrimination against a person with brown skin is a slightly different situation than then discrimination against a person with an intellectual disability is a matter of degree. Because I hate to say this term, but if we surveyed everybody in the United States and said, among the racial groups, how would you rank them in terms of intelligence? I don't do I don't need to, I don't need to finish.
You know,
it's in the last, you know, it's become more unpopular to, to admit that, right. And to say that, but you will still hear people who work in urban school districts say just about kids of color, they just can't learn as much as those white kids. So I think they're some of the same prejudices about competence and ability going on. There are truly similarities in terms of prejudice against groups that historically haven't had much power. And, you know, white people have controlled people of color. And intellectually non labeled people have controlled the lives of people with disabilities, including children with disabilities, and has, you know, have purported to say, my professional opinion is that this is what your life should look like, you know, and so I see them as very similar and is, is, you know, I mean, we're still struggling with race in this country. And we're still out there after 150 years, and only 60 years with Brown versus Board of Education. So when I say I wish we were further than we are with Inclusive Education, I, I sort of say, the same really entrenched societal institutions that are perpetuating racism are, are the societal institutions that perpetuate discrimination against children and adults with disabilities are just as ingrained?
Yes, I can see that I can see that it'd be good because it is really well, it's a false assumption that, you know, given whatever characteristic that, that this person is more intelligent than the, I mean, I remember going in my teacher training, learning about and I may be completely citing this wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong. But the, the idea that an IQ scores on IQ tests, that that, you know, black people, you know, score, you know, lower right, than white people. Right. And so that was used, you know, for so many years as like, well, they're, you know, they're not as intelligent as white people. You know, it's, I mean, I've got scientific data here, you know, until we started to realize that, okay, those tests are, you know, biased because they were made, you know,
I agree, you know, if you have you ever read the book, The Mismeasure of man,
I can't say that I have who was alright, so that's your assignment.
It's called the Miss measure m is mea FCRA, of man. And it's written by a recently deceased Harvard professor named Stephen Jay Gould, go you LD. And he actually goes back to the early development of IQ testing in the late 1800s, early 1900s. And shows how those tests which are supposed to be, you know, scientifically based, not culturally biased, were from the very getgo, based on some pre existing are a priori assumptions about how different intellectual or different racial groups would perform. And that the people who did some of those, like tests on 100, you know, African American soldiers compared to 100 white soldiers to see what their IQs look like. They fudged the data to support they're already the conclusion that they'd already drawn. So IQ testing, I just think is worthless and really worthless. Well
in and, you know, let's let's talk about IQ just for a little bit longer. That is, that is a big determiner of our eligibility categories. You know, I mean, I I mean, back. When I was in California, when I was writing my IEP is by hand, you know,
back in the heart and buggy days, horse and buggy days, you know, we
still had, we still had, you know, the Mr. Category or, you know, I remember sitting in a meeting with a parent who was irate because we still had that category. And I said, I completely agree with you. But there's nothing I can do about that. You need to write a superintendent, you need to, you know, like,
what your congress person? Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly.
So fortunately, I don't have to do that here. Because we do, we do have intellectual disability categories. But even still, you know, the whole idea of IQ and, and,
you know, when I do workshops, I do an activity. And I take a piece of, like painters tape or masking tape, and I lay it down on the floor, and I draw a line, right down the middle of the room that I'm presenting him, and I have people line up so that half of the people are sort of lined up on one side of the line and half people on the other. And I say, okay, the very first person on the left hand side of this line, you are not mentally retarded, because your score was 71. The very first person on the other side of the line, your eyes cue is 69, you are mentally retarded. Let's think about the logic of that. You know, even if you believed that intelligence, and the, you know, the gradation of intelligence could really be reliably, reliably measured, which I don't, Isn't that silly that we almost determine a child's whole educational career based on those two points of difference, you know, just just doesn't make educational sense to me, and it just doesn't seem right.
So let's, you know, let's say you're you, let's say you are a benevolent dictator of school. And, and, you know, let's get rid of IQ. Yeah, as as an eligibility. determiner? Or how would you assign services to a student with any particular need? We're talking any learning disability or, you know, or more intensive needs?
Okay, there is a big answer to that question. Okay. And I'm going to tell you, not just my ideas for this. But what is actually happening in many parts of the country right now. Perfect. Have you heard of the large national grant called the Swift project?
Absolutely. They all right, I'm a big fan. Let
me just briefly outline it for your listeners, the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, issued or $25 million grant to the University of Kansas and a bunch of other universities, to see what it would look like, if a school could take all of the resources, all of the monetary resources, they get both the resources that are kind of tagged as general education, because it comes from the regular school district budget, as well as all their special ed money and resources, and put it into one big pot. And then just do really great learning assessments for all the children, not just the kids who are suspected of having disabilities, but just do great, you know, math and language arts and communication assessments and abilities, technology, and, you know, all those kinds of assessments to tell you who this kid is a learner, what their strengths are, and what their needs are, and then be able to draw from that pot of money in that pot of personnel, special ed, teacher, speech pathologist, Title One teachers, ELL teachers, and put all those people just disperse them throughout the building in regular ed classes, and provide supports to kids, just whoever needs what, not by the label of the teacher. But like if I want to, if you understand what I mean, not by the teachers label. So it's not like only special ed teachers can work with kids with disabilities. But if Mary Jane needs extra support math, who is your greatest math teacher who's part of that fifth grade team? Okay, she's going to work with the kids who are struggling in math for some small amount of time during the day. So that pry process of breaking down the silos si ello s that have arisen in these different systems of education and passive money and grants. And, and devoting them all to the academic, behavioral, social and communication needs of all kids is what the Swift grant is testing out in a number of schools across the country. And they will come up with a toolkit or a guidebook for how a school that's not part of their project can begin to do this. So, unfortunately, what swift cannot control is the fact that the special ed law still exists. And we still need to label kids. I don't think I don't know why we need to label kids if we really had a system of describing kids learning characteristics really well, and then being able to provide whatever services they need.
Now, I mean, it's the reason why we even started to create eligibility categories and stuff like that is because there was nothing like special education before. I don't even know the year 1975. Okay, so 1975 Thank you. Well, I guess that would be the law. But
yeah, yeah, there was special ed before. And certain states began providing sort of their own version of the special ed law back in the 60s. And I don't, I think, oh, gosh, we're getting into real history and philosophy here. Sorry. That's okay. Special Education has its roots in medicine, actually. Right? Because disability historically has been considered not an illness, so to speak. But something's gone wrong in this person, kind of thing. It's something that's diagnosed. And that's a medical term. Right? Right. It's something that we just like in medicine, in order to treat you I need to know, do you have appendicitis? Or do you have gallbladder aside? So the special ed, early special ed folks really came from the medical world, and they brought with them that need to label and diagnose. And then the idea that a certain treatment, only a certain treatment or set of treatments go along with each label. That's one of the reasons we've gotten to where we are today.
Yeah, yeah, I often hear, I often hear when, you know, in the kind of the jargon of, you know, teachers speak the old versus new model or the medical model, you know, versus, I mean, I'm not sure what you call it now. But, and the pushback of that medical model. So it is interesting, the kind of mess that we've made for ourselves, especially now that we want to, well, some of us, some of us do want to change.
And I guess I'm gonna just jump in with one more trans, historical, deeply, deeply held belief, and I kind of I mentioned that a little bit, just a minute ago, is that the belief is still that people who have a difference that we call disability, there's something wrong with them. And then they need to be fixed. Right. And so you know, sort of the medical model is there's a pill, there's a program, there's a place that will fix this person and make them normal. A different view of disability is that society sort of creates, or socially constructs. That idea that there's here's this line, and on one side of it is the normal people. And on the other side are the abnormal people. And I think, I think parents are under terrible pressures from from the time their child is born, if their child is labeled with a disability, at that point, they're under terrible societal and familiar, familiar family pressures to do whatever they can to make their child normal. Because you need to be normal to have a good life. Right?
Right. Yeah, you want the best for your child? No more
services, more speech pathology, you know, more discrete trial training to eliminate that autism. Yes, therein lies the pickle that we are in or in my appeal. Yeah, yeah. No,
I share that view. You know, and what's, you know, I guess I haven't always thought the way that I did you know, when I first got into special ed eat well into the fields, I guess I Um, I was a behavior therapist, for students with autism and I fell in, you know, kind of fell into the job because I was a psychology major, and you can't get a whole lot of jobs with a BA in psychology. And while I was deciding, well do I go, you know, to Master's, because I wanted to be a counselor and a therapist, I decided to do this thing. And I just fell in love with, you know, kids with autism, I just, it just it, I've realized, Oh, I think this is what I should be doing. And, and so I had a very different mindset when I first started working at working with them, and it was definitely Okay, well, how can I make this child more normal? You know, how can I, you know, I wonder what the cure will be for autism, for sure. And I remember my parents, you know, would be, you know, trying all these different diets and, you know, other kinds of therapy. And it was, it was very interesting, you know, and the only thing that changed, the only reason I changed was because, of course, my my teacher training. I had really great professors, who were, you know, TASH members, a little plug for Tash. And that started opening my eyes and then meeting autistic. Yeah, that's right. And that is really what made me go, oh, they don't want to be, you know, they don't want to change. They don't want to be like, hey, well, how come I haven't heard of this before? And then it just kind of snowballed after that. And, and so, the the inclusion, you know, the idea and the philosophy of inclusion. And this idea of, of the disability is natural, right? Isn't that she did snow. My saying that right. Kathy? Snow, Kathy? Snow, sorry, yeah, the wrong snow. that disability is a natural part of the human experience. And that it really shouldn't be looked at as something that needs to be fixed. You know, in that way, like you'd like like having cancer, you know what I mean? Yeah, and so anyways, go ahead.
Yeah, just a couple of resources for your listeners, if they are in if, and you know, this idea, particularly if you're a parent or teacher, this idea of autism is a natural thing, or, you know, how can that be? I agree, it takes, you know, it's not easy to wrap your head around. So if people want to kind of go online and poke around and read some, you know, provocative essays about this, there's a couple of online sources. One is called the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. I assume you can put this in print somewhere on your blog, so people can find it. It the abbreviation is a s, a n. And it's a group of autistic adults who are very much involved in really political advocacy and rights advocacy. And they say, yeah, no, thank you. I mean, I there's sometimes I wish my life were easier, but it's not. But I also have so much good that I experienced as a result of having autism, but I wouldn't want to not have autism. And then there's another online website called the autism Acceptance Project. Again, sort of a mom who does blogging and has lots of resources about this idea of, we don't need to be cured, we need to be included and supported.
Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, I feel I feel like we could talk about that for a long time. I want to go back to I want to go back to some of the questions we had about, I guess systems change and, and what people can do that are in situations that I guess are less than inclusive. And so I have a question for you. Yeah, I am. And I don't think you know, this, but I am a self contained teacher. Oh, I didn't know that. Yes. And it's surprising to most people. Talking to you, Tim. Yeah, I know. Right. Exactly. Exactly. And I have been a self contained teacher for 10 years. And when I got into the field, when I got into working in, in schools, and my teeth, my training was so far different than what I experienced in schools. And the the, you know, the job I got was a, you know, a self contained teacher for students with autism. And now I'm in Georgia, in the same in the same sort of situation. But, but now I've kind of come out of the cold Was it and, and now I just want I can't shut up about it. And I know people are probably tired of me hearing, you know, tiny, especially at my school. But you know, I often have this kind of cognitive dissonance every time I go to work. So I've asked, I've asked a few different, you know, of the people I interview about this. So should I quit my job as a self contained teacher at my school and move to another school? Or district? You know, because of my beliefs for inclusion? Or should I stay in my job, and try and influence the system within because there's only so much I can control? You know, I can't control who my principal is, I can't control who my superintendent is, are my supervisors, but I can't control what goes on in my classroom. So what would your advice be? You know, because I'm not the only one, oh, gosh, no, oh, there's plenty of people who think and feel the same way, and they're in the same situation.
I think, I think I would need to know more about you. And to know, sort of like, at the end of the day, at the end of the year, what do you feel like you need to have done in order to feel like you've made the difference you want to make? Now some people would say, if I feel like I change five little moments in my students lives, to give them five little slices of joy during their day, you know, then I will feel as if I have made enough of a difference in their life, that I've held true to my own beliefs. And then I think I've that change has made enough of a difference in their life. Another question, I would ask you, or any other teacher who's sort of pondering this dilemma is what are the chances and have you tried to really develop a core group of allies in your school community, so that you are not alone? Because you'll never do it alone. I mean, in probably even convincing one, even if the other one other person you convince as the principal, that person has to convince a whole bunch of other people, I don't know what kind of effort and resources you've sort of brought to bear to try to systematically get a group of allies and that could and how long? Can you work on that? And throw the towel in?
Right? Well, you know, before it before you hang up on me, Okay, I will, I will say that I have been systematically, well, in every job I've been, I've been systematically including my students in Gen Ed, you know, as much as physically possible. And just a few years ago, I actually work with a consultant and a mentor of mine to include a student with significant disabilities in general ed forte. Yeah. And we it was, it was a, it was a gradual process, but he currently is in in fourth grade, you know, pretty much for all day. And I work with his or his paraprofessional and general ed teacher to modify those activities. And, and so those, you know, I mean, that is wonderful. And I'm very happy that, that I've been able to do that very blessed to be able to do that. But that in and of itself, you know, is one story, you know, and I would love to do more. But I feel, you know, and, you know, and I am a strong inclusion advocate, and everybody knows it. But and, but I do feel like my hands are tied sometimes because you know, I can't do everything. And so anyways, I guess I don't really have a, you know, the, I don't really have an answer for the people who are in my position, except just to keep going keep believing, keep talking. You know, that's part of the reasons why I started this website was because because I couldn't find anything out there that would support me, you know, I couldn't I could not find any resources or any any teacher that was trying to do the same thing I was in and have some sort of, you know, incur or judgment or, you know, saying, Hey, I'm not the only one, you know. And so that's what I'm, that's what I hope that thinking cluesive Does that the that these podcasts do is that the people and the teachers and the parents who listen, can say, Okay, I'm not the only one, I can do this, you know, I can create a professional learning network on Twitter, on Facebook, I can have that support. And even if I don't, you know, get where I want to. I have a roadmap, you know, you know,
I just want to sort of screen when I hear that when you were teaching, you couldn't find those resources, because they've been around since 1985. But those of us putting them out there, haven't done a great job of it, I guess, you know, like, if you being sort of the assertive and smart and creative person you work, couldn't find those resources. What a terrible job, those of us in the political field have done. I'm sure it's a NASA problem, we have not learned how to take, you know, these little islands of X inclusive excellence and spread them. And that's what that's another thing that swift project is trying to do. It's not that we've not known how to do it, it's that we've not known how to spread it on a large scale and sustain it. Right. So Swift is as much interested in those questions as it is on what kind of assistive technology will help us good read better, you know, right? Golly. Yeah. So I, of course, want to consult with you now and try to get give you ideas that you haven't thought of for moving your school? Well,
that's probably for another conversation Exactly. I think that the biggest barrier that I run across, is, it's not just from my call the colleagues in my in my school building, because, you know, when you were talking about allies, I have, I have created a nice, you know, a nice group of allies that I talked about with and we, you know, we put our heads together and, you know, do the things that we have control over. But when I, when I have conversations, you know, in the global sphere, is that they just people are wary about this, because they just don't know how to do it. They don't know what it looks like. And, and like, you know, like what you said at the Swift schools, I really think that that's gonna be a really nice way to show people I know, Dan had beavers. It was a guest on a few months ago. And I know that he's doing the filming for the swift school. So really excited about that. And, you know, to show people that, that that because they just don't believe
it. No, no. And I think videos really help. But I think even Dan would say that one of the reasons he just had, what he feels was success with his film, including Samuel, is that people just, you just don't say, Okay, we're showing including Samuelsson. 738 30, Thursday night, come if you want. And that's the end of it. It's the beginning of a conversation, right? It needs to be a very intentional conversation with people over multiple years, with lots of professional developments, you know, attention to that infrastructure in the school that provides common planning time. And, you know, it's not just one or two people, I mean, it's really looking at what schools need in order to make a change and sustain the change. And we really need to be talking about math curriculum. You know, it's any change in schools is really difficult. And maybe inclusive education is a little harder than math curriculum, because it gets at some basic human, you know, values about humanity and so forth. But, you know, we're still really learning how to how to spread the process beyond little islands of excellence.
Right? I like that. That kind of visual metaphor. Yes. Yeah. Cuz I think that's what it is. It's, you know, I, you know, I'm gonna put it out there, I am looking for those little islands of excellence, please come, please come and tell me I will share them with the world. You know, I mean, that's the whole point. You know, like I need, I want to show people I want to, I want to be able to have that for myself as well. You know, this is what it looks like. This is how, what it feels like. And
Georgia, I don't know. I don't know anybody in Georgia. Are their cash members in Georgia?
Well, I think I think I might be the Holy moly. No, that's not true. No, you know, Connie, Connie, Lila Brown and Brian are in Georgia. And I have connected with them, although only just very briefly, we keep saying we're going to do something else. But you know, I know they're very busy. So, you know, we don't have a attached chapter. I tried to start when a few years ago and I, it didn't quite get off the ground. But you know, you know, Georgia is not the only state that has no chapter. And I think part of the reason is, you have so many different disability disability rights organizations within a state, you know, Georgia has a bunch, and they're all kind of the same people, you know, yeah. So adding another one is, there's not a whole lot of incentive, especially when it's not very powerful. I mean, we have, you know, the senators on I'm gonna say this right in the center for leadership on disability.
Okay. It's George's institute on disability that I used to work for. Yes, yes. Exactly. University Center on developmental disability. Yes. Yes. Georgia
State University. Yes, that is still up and running. Yep. And, you know, is still very, you know, a powerful advocacy group. And then you also have the Georgia council on developmental disability. And then you also have the ark. And you have, you know, just there's various groups, and it's just like that all over, you know, all over the country. So, you know, if we could get everyone together, you know, but that's just so hard to do. And everyone has their own agendas. And you know, all
right. So I'll tell you, the number one thing that New Hampshire did 30 years ago, 25 years ago to get inclusion going? Are you familiar with what's called Partners in Policymaking?
Doesn't get in there. But it
actually you can google it Partners in Policymaking? I think they're based in Minnesota. Most states have. It's a parent leadership series that occurs over the course of a year. And it teaches parents of school aged kids with disabilities about community organizing best practices, and like legislative advocacy. In 1987. New Hampshire's had their first Partners in Policymaking thing for families. And that got inclusive education off the ground. I will email you the contact of the woman who runs New Hampshire's. And if you could, starting in 2014 15, run a Partners and Policymaking for families around inclusive education. There is your start statewide inclusive education that has served to be the biggest pressure point in our state. Bar none. So I will email that to you. Well, that
makes sense. You know, the day we come from a parent. Yeah, well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Me, you don't know how many times I hear, you know, parents get what they want around here.
And our parent leadership series, our governor is a graduate of our parent leadership series. 25 years ago, we have school board chairs, because there's a very much it's not just sort of the people who come can't just want to make change in their own child's life, they need to really be a want to be a community organizer, and make a difference in policy. So we have, you know, state representatives and legislators and school board members and school board chairs, and, you know, business people who happened to have a child with a disability, and they have found their power.
That's, that's great. That's great. This has been a very, very interesting conversation. I am so glad I'm so this is the kind of conversation I wish, you know, I would be recorded and I am recording it. So this is awesome. Oh, yay. When, you know, we're kind of getting up to an hour here. And I just want to make sure I wanted to talk about about the Common Core. It's a very hot topic, you know, just in in the general education sphere. And so I wanted to know your thoughts about common core and if special educators in particular should be worried about that issue, believe it or not, I've gotten emails and you know, wondering what I thought about it and and whether, you know, they think whether I thought it was going to leave our kids behind, you know, because of The rigor or whatever. So what are what are your thoughts on that?
I don't think it needs to, but I'm worried that it will. Okay. And I have some evidence, just anecdotal. But the evidence, and the thing that makes me most worried is that people will say, it'll it'll be used as another excuse to separate kids with disabilities from kids without disabilities, that unless you are pursuing that, you know, unless you're in that 10th grade English class, to master all those regular Common Core standards, you can't be in this English class. Now, that's against the special ed law. But I'm hearing that that's happening, that people are saying to parents, you know, what alternate assessments are based on alternate achievement standards, that are still very closely linked to the Common Core regular ed standards. I'm hearing people say, from different states, if you have a child who's working on those alternate achievement standards, and taking that alternate achievement test, you can't be in regular ed. So I'm really worried about that. I don't, I don't think the common core standards need to need need to leave kids with disabilities behind I think, if they, if people had the right attitude about kids with disabilities, it would help raise everybody's achievements. But only if people think that kids with disabilities can achieve to those high levels and provide them with multiple means to get there. Right. So the universal design to me, you we should be saying Common Core State Standards taught through Universal Design for Learning. I mean, they should sort of go together. And there's just no evidence that students with disabilities who are in regular classes where, you know, people are learning the Common Core standards, there's no evidence that they will bring down anybody else's scores. But I hear that worry all the time. Right.
You? Right. I remember. I remember listening to Lou Brown talk a few. A few years ago, I think it was his DVD. And he mentioned that he's like, he said something like, if, you know, if all the scores went down in the whole school district, you know, because because you know, those those people, his students in disability, yes, you know, then you would have to say the same thing, if the if the student that the scores went up with disabilities? Yes, exactly.
Yeah, again, I think people have a conclusion already in their mind, and then they're just sort of coming up with rationales to support that, you know, that's a foregone conclusion, no evidence at all. And lots of evidence that universally designed instruction and inclusive classrooms have to improve everybody's achievement. Absolutely.
100% agree. Yeah. You know, in my view, with Common Core, I'm not as concerned. But I think it's more like what you said, because of my own attitude. You know, I can't control other people's attitudes, but I can't control mine. And I always thought, specifically with, with alternate assessment, that it made more sense to teach, you know, standards that were aligned to the Common Core in the gen ed setting, as opposed to a self contained setting, which I've tried to argue many times with my colleagues. Because what ended up happening, I think, is that, like, oh, we have all these alternate achievement standards, great, we can go into our special rooms. And, and just teach them Common Core there. Right? We can, yeah, we can teach the standards there. Which doesn't work, it doesn't work. And, and it's very, and, you know, it's frustrating for me, because I want to give access to my kids. And I want to get, you know, give them access to the general curriculum. And I have, you know, when I have K through five, and, and they, you know, they want me to teach a lesson that is K through five. Wow. And, I mean, it is it is nearly impossible word. I know, it's so hard. And, you know, and I'm in I'm not a special educator, I'm not against alternate assessment, ya know, like, but I am, I am the way that we're kind of doing it, especially in Georgia, I'm showing my hand, you know, the Georgia Department of Ed, if you're listening, but this is, you know, it's it's definitely very difficult and I know that other states are feeling the same the same way.
Yeah, there are some states whose alternate assessments are very rigorous. And, you know, there's the two national consortia that are developing a new alternate assessment Since based on the common core standards, they're very rigorous. You almost can't tell them apart from the course. You know the general ed standards, but kids are given a variety of ways. They're taught them in a variety of ways. And they're given a variety of ways to show what they know. So universal design.
Absolutely. Okay. Well, this has been a wonderful conversation. Jorgenson, thank you so much for taking so much time and really, you know, developing the topics and stuff and I wish you all the best and love to have another conversation of the future.
Great. I would look forward to it. Excellent. Okay, good night.
That concludes this edition of the thinking police podcast. For more information about Cheryl Jorgensen. You can visit her website, Cheryl M. jorgenson.com. Or search for her ask Cheryl posts on thinking cluesive Remember, you can always find us on Twitter at think underscore inclusive or on the web at think inclusive.us Visit our sponsor at Brooks publishing.com and receive 25% off your order using the promo code T I M B D 25. Today's show is produced by myself talking USB headphones, a MacBook Pro GarageBand and a Skype account. Bumper music by Jose Galvez with the song press. You can find it on iTunes. You can also subscribe to the podcast via the iTunes Music Store, or podomatic.com. The largest community of independent podcasters on the planet from Marietta, Georgia. Please join us again on the thinking cohesive podcast. Thanks for your time and attention.
