Shunning my instincts for acquisition, I decided last year, after 35 years of business, to do some pro bono catolico. I decided to teach at a Catholic school. It offered at least an opportunity for philosophical congruence. Or, so I thought.
I reiterate. This was pro bono work. The remuneration level was, well, very Catholic. But I enjoyed the work – sharp kids, well motivated kids, involved parents, and a good disciplinary environment. What's not to like?
ADA, that's what. (I'm proud to say that I don't know what the official title is. It was marketed as a parking and ingress-egress law.) Forget Frank Norris, I've found The Octopus. It's ADA.
At a faculty meeting a little past mid-year, fifth on the agenda was "special needs students". The therapeutic state strikes again. The faculty was informed that as an institution we are under threat of potential parental law suit; the school must develop a program for all students with learning disabilities, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), for example.
Because I was a plant manager when the first OSHA regulations were promulgated, and because I lived in Clinton's America, I mused; there's mischief in "program" and "learning disability." In gadfly mode, I raised my hand to pose the following: "I've got fifty minutes per class, how do you want me to spend it in order to be in compliance?" Of course no one knew. They weren't being evasive. These very good and sincere educators, not a bureaucrat among them, did not know. Yep, that's what OSHA was and is. What to do?
After appointing a task force, another meeting occurred roughly six weeks later. No gadflies needed to attend. This was a "you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution" meeting, where the staff Nazi grabs the whip and silences the disquieted. The question was raised by me as to the liability of the individual teacher in regard to any possible litigation. No one could say that a non-compliant teacher could not be sued for non-compliance. I mused; there's more mischief. (Today this would be considered "unsettled" law.)
Ok, what must we do to "comply"? The preliminary answer proferred was that each teacher must take notice and accommodate any "special needs" students in his/her class. Inasmuch as "mainstreaming special needs" is already educational dogma, homogeneous groupings won't solve the problem. Assuming some M.D., for a commission on chemical assuagement, would certify that any given student was "special needs", my problem was now "accommodate".
It was late spring and my last meeting on this subject was scheduled. No, I didn't know beforehand that it was my last meeting, but it was. Two Special Education instructors from a local public school gave a fine performance on teaching "special needs" youngsters. I can summarize their message succinctly. Every student is different and must be taught uniquely. They uttered this simple message with frequency, passion and volume. This mantra agitated the people and the Reich.
With a reasonable idea of what "accommodate" now or in the near future would mean, I further mused; six classes, 25 students per class, 150 lesson plans per day. I've got your pro bono.
Not that I believe the above will happen overnight, but the process has begun. Combine heterogeneous grouping with ADA, and private schools will, by dint of misuse of a paucity of funds, dumb down to avoid litigation.
Can't happen? In the immortal words of Hubert H. Humphrey: "This is not a quota bill!" Now, who would not want private schools to have discretion in matters related to improving each child? Who would want them to squander scare resources on frivolous orthodoxy? My guess, the same people who today want to link them to federal "vouchers".
My last comment is advice – Get your child certified as "special", but discard the prescription. There's no downside. Assuming the demand for education is inelastic, eventually he/she will be tutored. The NEA isn't against homogeneous grouping unless it reduces their dues.
January 29, 2001
