Nancy E. Bailey writes here about current efforts to put children with disabilities on a computer and call it “personalized learning” and “inclusion.” It is neither.
“Personalized learning must not be mistaken for inclusion. The reality is that it’s student isolation!
“Inclusion is generally defined as the action or state of including or of being included within a group or structure. Doing schoolwork on a digital device by yourself is not inclusion. It’s ability grouping for one!
“In special education, inclusion is often described as students working alongside their peers. Alongside? Please tell me that doesn’t mean sitting next to another student on the computer!…
“Differentiation refers to Carol Ann Tomlinson’s push to get children in inclusion classrooms doing academic activities in ways that are common but uniquely different. This takes much thoughtful planning on the part of well-qualified teachers.
“For example, students might read about a topic with everyone placed at their individual reading levels. Next, they could come together as a class to discuss the topic.
“Jennifer Carolan, co-founding partner of Reach Capital, a $53 million venture fund that backs education technology startups, writes in Education Week about such differentiation, trying to liken it to personalized learning. The article is called “Personalized Learning Isn’t About Isolation.” Previously, Carolan was the managing director and co-founder of the Seed Fund at the NewSchools Venture Fund.
“But she’s wrong. Personalized learning is about working alone.
“The reality is, and many of us understand, that tech enthusiasts are pushing teachers out of the profession and creating facilitators who merely monitor students as they work alone…
“It takes experienced teachers in both general and special education, and decent class sizes, to help address the challenges facing students with disabilities. Computers don’t do that. They merely present skills and review (ongoing assessment).
“The human element, the most important part of inclusion for children, involves bringing students together—both academically and socially!
“Children with disabilities need skills, of course. But they also need peer acceptance. They will not get that from a machine. Such acceptance also leads to a greater societal good.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
And to add to her list:
There will be no point to sending kids to a costly school building to work on computers. Brick and mortar schools will probably disappear. So then who will watch kids at home when they are woking on their computer lessons? Will parents have to hire a monitor who will also have to feed them and take care of their other needs during the day? Even if students do go to a building to do their computer lessons, this will change more than education. It will change the way students relate to each other and to adults.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine that this or that Big Money profiteer won’t go after the lucrative opportunity to set up “monitoring centers…”
LikeLike
Who will watch the children when the brick and mortar schools are gone and the children are learning alone at home in front of a computer monitor? A robot. We are currently at the beginning of the robot revolution.
LikeLike
And it’s CRAZY, too! Thanks, Lloyd.
LikeLike
My question is who will watch the robots after they have terminated all the humans?
Will robot-sitting become a thing?
Will it still pay poverty wages?
LikeLike
No wages, pension, or healthcare for robots.
Unless they form a union.
LikeLike
The irony is that an AI based robotic civilization will probably end up being pure socialism. There will be no need to eat so no farms or ranches growing food for humans. There will be no need for the kind of shelters humans want with HVAC systems. Robots will be designed that won’t feel the heat or the cold. Since the robots are part of the internet, they won’t need to pay to link up to the internet. Robots will not be consumers so there will be no need for businesses.
What will a world dominated by robots and an AI intelligence network look like? It won’t be anywhere close to the human built environment.
Then again, Bill Gates and Suckerberg and the others like them might create algorithms for the AI intelligence that will duplicate human thought and greed for power. Will they also design robots to fuel up with human food instead of plugging into an electric grid powered by alternative energy?
LikeLike
One of the positive effects of inclusion is the peer effect of placing classified students in classes with regular education students. Many disabled students have difficulty negotiating the social skills that are required in today’s world. Inclusion addresses this issue by offering positive modeling in a real world experience. No virtual instruction can ever simulate the social, emotional experience of a real class, nor can it simulate the different learning modalities of an actual classroom experience. Most students classified or regular education require more than just point and click, followed by data mining.
LikeLike
In the logic of computer science (Boolean logic) NOT is used to turn false into true
With this in mind, any statement made by the tech industry about education can also be made true by simply putting a NOT in front of it
For example, “NOT personalized learning” and “NOT inclusion” make the corresponding techy claims true.
So, when in doubt, use NOT. Actually, NOT should be hardwired into your brain when you are reading tech industry claims about teaching and learning.
And when they say “Teachers really need this gadget/software”, the best answer is NOT! (More often than not)
LikeLike
Hello. Special education teacher here. I don’t know if things will change but in my state special education teachers have been required to teach via a specific model that wasn’t what research showed us was good for our students. We have been required to include higher level thinking skills in lessons for students who are what we used to call profoundly mentally handicapped. (yes, the law made us change the way our students were identified) Certainly, we always provide challenges to help student growth but to spend time on having a student predict or some other higher level task when the student is still working on cause and effect along with basic communication I wonder if it is really the best investment of time and resources. After all with a measured IQ of a six month old would you really have such high expectations or would you spend time on more basic skills and work up from there when and where successful?
My colleagues and I use everything we can think of to bring cognition, understanding, and independent functioning to our students. My students may focus on a computer screen if there is movement. Many will listen to and watch short video clips with sound. Most still need assistance with a mouse or navigating a computer. Even using an iPad requires supervision. To lump all special education students together is a big dis service.
The only fraction of the special education population that computer instruction may be good for might be a gifted student who has a very specific learning disability. Jennifer Carolan should come visit a center school to see for herself what this population responds to. I’m disgusted with people telling teachers that we are only interested in our own gain yet they are acting as spokes people for venture funds or legislators with vested interests. I currently don’t get any higher pay or benefits if my students do well or not the way the system is set up. However, I am thrilled when any one of my students makes any sort of gain in communication, behavior, understanding academics, or gains physical function. Oh sure with Medicaid cuts, physical or occupational therapy would be out the door. Perhaps these cuts are aimed at lowering the number of the lowest one percent population that modern medicine has been able to nurture through infancy since they will always need custodial care. (big sigh)
LikeLike
Thank you, Nancy Bailey!
LikeLike
“For example, students might read about a topic with everyone placed at their individual reading levels. Next, they could come together as a class to discuss the topic.”
I’m sorry but sitting students in an English lit class who are reading at 2nd or third grade level…Differentiation is well and good for students within a year or two of their peers. Who thinks those kids are going to feel like they belong in that classroom? Differentiation is an important idea that has been carried much to far. Designing activities/units can be extremely time consuming and demanding even when a class is confined to those students who can handle the workload without extra assistance. I consciously tried to make sure that everyone one of my students in my self contained classroom had a variety of ways to demonstrate their understanding. I also supported students in the mainstream classrooms, but contrary to what many people seem to believe the least restrictive environment (LRE) is defined by the student. If they can handle full inclusion that is the LRE for them. If the mainstream class is intimidating, frustrating, and/or demeaning, than a self contained class may be the LRE. The what, when, and where of learning should be defined by the needs of the special ed student, not the latest educational fad.
I’m ranting too much . More than enough said.
LikeLike
Your problem (if you don’t mind my saying so) is that you know waaaay too much and are letting your knowledge and expertise interfere with your decision making.
Better to just let some financial “analyst” at Reach Capital Venture fund (and/or some software engineer at Microsoft or Pearson) who is completely ignorant about teaching and learning decide the important issues.
Hope that helps. 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you, SDP. I learned pretty early on, in my checkered past, that five weeks training or in my case a psych undergrad degree and volunteer tutoring DO NOT prepare you to teach!
LikeLike
Not ranting, speduktr, the simple truth. Thank you Deb & speduktr for telling it like it is.
Terrible times for special ed. students, parents & teachers. The continuum of services, LRE & IEPs must continue in place in order for our students to be successful.
Sad story as point (& this was quite a while back, so just imagine what will happen now):
parent absolutely insistent that her severely disabled child (both mentally & physically challenged) be “included.” To the exclusion of her 3 other children, parent spent hour upon hour putting herself & her child through futile Doman-Delacato (way back when–thankfully, no longer used–terrible & mostly useless) exercises.
What this child needed most was, of course, life skills training rather than the “buddy” system (just as harmful to her as being placed at a computer “next to” a peer).
Consequently, the child–who, as an adult, possessed the mental capacity of probably no more than a five-year-old–had not learned to dress herself nor to even care for her most basic needs (toileting, feminine hygiene, etc.). As such, whereas, having acquired those skills, she would have qualified for a group home environment, she did not.
Her family was not well-off, and the responsibility for her care ultimately fell to her siblings. Not being in the age of NCLB, RTTP or DeVos, she could have had FAPE (Free & APPROPRIATE Education).
And now, as you so well explain, Deb, NO such child will be able to get it.
Prop the kids up & let them stare at computers & take “standardized” tests, but DON’T educate them. Ever again.
LikeLike