Inclusive Exclusion?

Prior to the extant federally mandated provision of "least restrictive

environment" for students with learning disabilities, there were attempts to include
some children with disabilities in groupings of students who did not have learning
disabilities. [Or, at least, the non-disabled students' abilities were sufficiently normative
to not merit "labeling."] Prior to inclusion, segregation of students with normatively
deviant abilities was commonplace. Prior to segregation, there were no formal services
provided to children whose abilities significantly deviated from the norm. Prior to that
"exclusive" arrangement, there were few formal educational experiences (i.e., "school")
at all...for any children. Does this lack of formal educational arrangements mean that no
suitable education "happened?" Of course not. Does the much lauded--and politically
correct--paradigm of the "least restrictive environment" guarantee that suitable
education will be effected? No...at least not arbitrarily. Certainly, learning--which ought
to be the goal of education--can occur in any or all of the above-mentioned situations.
Most of what we know as "education" is promoted and perpetuated
by normal educators (as in the statistically normative range). The goal is to provide
services to normal children (the same statistical usage).
While much is proclaimed about the celebration of diversity--and the supposed
recognition and accommodation of normatively deviant learners--the truth is that most
recent changes (i.e., in the last one-hundred years or so) have been made in compulsive
attempts to "normalize" deviancy. There are two groups that suffer as a result of this
compulsion: (1) Students with disabilities (learning and otherwise), and (2) Students
with exceptionally high abilities (whether intellectual, or creative, or both). [It is
possible for a learner to "be a member" of both groups. Stephen Hawking comes to
mind.] It is clear that the greater the deviation, the greater is the difficulty in providing
services to these learners. If it is "decided" that a learner cannot be adequately
"normalized" he or she will be ostracized. [Remember, one can be "alone" in a crowd of
people.]
 Some learners--both abnormally able (remember...statistics...population) and
abnormally less able--are cognizant of their "specialness" and strive to be recognized as
part of the normal group (i.e., the tribe). Learners a bit farther out in the fringe who are
not cognizant of their specialness, and/or lack the "skills" to self-normalize, are
often forced toward normalization. It borders on "evil"--and most assuredly makes no
sense--to force the inclusion (a.k.a. normalization) of some learners. Where rational
accommodations can be made for these students, they should be made. If that includes
an alternative service placement, then such a placement should be made whenever it is
appropriate.
In some ways (or, for some people) the benefit of such placement can be more
readily seen in the case of the exceptionally gifted learner. What if an irrational, ill-
informed, compulsive "system" were to take our next Einstein (or Stephen Hawking)
and force him or her to be mainstreamed by inclusion? It is clear that forcing a
prodigious mathematician to suffer the boredom of general math classes--for the
purpose of inclusion--is both cruel and stupid. Conversely, how can forced inclusion of
significantly less-abled people result in a better experience for them and the normal
learners with whom they are included?
"Special" is, by definition, not normal. Current trends overly emphasize
normalization--a function of socialization...not education--rather than true progress
toward greater experience. How much greatness are we destroying in the headlong
rush to normalize special learners? How much specialness is excluded by inclusion?