Special Education for All? ? Joanne Jacobs

Caveat: I?m writing this on the fly, so excuse me if my thoughts drift or have a general incoherence.

I?ve had some experience with UDL, particularly as it is presented to those who are training to be teachers. I?ve seen it at work in classrooms, and I?m generally of the belief that it?s seriously flawed in two ways because of assumptions it makes that are questionable.

First, there is the belief that everyone?s learning is different ? that learning is like ?fingerprints?. This is probably literally true, in the sense that my learning is my learning, and your learning is yours. The phenomena of our learnings are numerically distinct, and probably have some minor cosmetic differences, just like fingerprints. But fingerprints (for the most part) are functionally interchangeable when it comes to their actual deployment: gripping things. Saying that everyone?s learning is different is not the same as saying that there are, in each and every person, differences that are relevant to teaching.

In fact, we (humans) learn in very predictable ways. That?s not to say that there may not be some broadly functional distinctions to be made between various types of student; but it is to say that the vision of every single student as relevantly unique is false.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, UDL confounds ?opportunities? for learning with ?results of learning.? Now, from a certain point of view, this makes sense. I can be said to have an equal opportunity to become an NBA all-star when compared to Kobe Bryant; we both can show up to try-outs and give it our all. But from another perspective, I don?t have an equal opportunity, because I do not get to possess the same sort of natural athletic gifts that Bryant has.

The thinking that underlies this is really what I consider to be the most serious flaw in Kantian-Rawlsian thinking: the notion that what matters to people?s identity is some kernel of disembodied rationality, and will a sort of volitional homunculus that is the self and upon which get draped contingent rainments like one?s body, one?s talents, one?s social position, etc.

The UDL framework makes the same sort of assumption about students: that the various levels of intelligence, the various levels of motivation, background knowledge, self-discipline, etc., are all contingencies that are external to the core essence of each student, and that to give each student (read: each disembodied kernel of rationality and human worth) an equal opportunity, the various barriers that arise from their contingent characteristics should be swept away.

To have an equal opportunity for learning, in other words, is to be in a situation that is structured such that the results of the educational process depend solely on will. And even that is abstracted away to a certain degree, with the view that ?engagement? and ?motivation? influences the operation of the will and that the environment should be set up to remove any barriers to choosing to learn.

Finally ? and this isn?t a third assumption, but a terrible mistake that proceeds from the first two flawed assumptions ? UDL ends up abstracting the learning process to the point of futility. This is somewhat similar to your point about how UDL will end up teaching different content, but not exactly the same. Let me see if I can explain what I mean by example.

UDL is very concerned with how educators set up the learning objectives for their students, and pushes an approach that (they say) gets to the important heart of what is really desired: learning. Here?s an example of how UDL sets itself apart from its perceived opponents (who may or may not really exist):

Traditional Learning Goal: Students will read the chapter on the Agricultural Revolution and will write, in cursive, a 200-word report about its technological innovations.

UDL Goal: Students will learn and present information about the technological innovations underlying the Agricultural Revolution.

UDL, its proponents argue, dismisses the sorts of arcane trappings that normally accompany learning goals and instead focuses on the pure, generalized goal of learning and demonstration through whatever methods will work best for each individual student.

This sounds great, right? I mean, who doesn?t want to get right down to the essence of what?s important and pursue it directly?

But UDL makes the same mistake with content that it makes with human nature: the goal of the ?traditional? lesson isn?t just to teach some facts about the agricultural revolution. The goal of the traditional lesson is to develop certain particular, deployed capacities in the students. Indeed, on some views, the capacities are primary, and the transmission of knowledge about the Agricultural Revolution is completely secondary to the process.

UDL views the following as ?barriers? that exist in the Traditional assignment above:

* Some students may have difficulty with cursive handwriting

* Some students may not be able to effectively organize their thoughts and put them on paper to create a report of this length.

But writing in cursive and learning to organize one?s thoughts on paper are part of what is sought to be taught!

That?s not to say that a UDL educator doesn?t want to teach skills, but the UDL philosophy more or less forces educators to fragment the curriculum, rather than integrating it. Every piece of knowledge, every skill, every task, is broken down and presented atomically, stripped to its fundamentals to allow a maximally effective transmission of that particular kernel to each of the various individual learners. It?s highly analytical, and so it appeals to the underlying philosophical commitments described above.

But it?s no way to teach a person how to flourish in a society. It?s great if you?re programming a computer ? or a disembodied kernel of rationality and will. But when you?re teaching people you need to integrate, to turn things into combined exercises. Learning about the agricultural revolution just isn?t that important on its own ? even if it does get its own heading in the state standards. It?s not really the primary goal of the lesson, and to treat it as if it is is to make a serious error.

I?ve gone on long enough, so I?ll stop here.

dave matthews ambien heart attack grill madden 13 cover dalai lama tamera mowry slow jam the news