Moral Issues in Special Education. Robert F. Ladenson
framework) for children to make choices that develop their abilities and judgment in regard to practical deliberation and that express their individuality. Accordingly, although relevant curricula and teaching methods for children with intellectual disabilities in the mild or moderate range differ greatly from those appropriate for nondisabled students, they share one underlying basic objective.
Effort must be directed in both cases toward providing the children a K–12 education reasonably calculated to help them acquire knowledge and develop abilities central to success in seeking the basic human good of self-fulfillment. The second prong of the essential objective of an appropriate education for children in Group A therefore applies clearly with respect to children with mild or moderate intellectual disability condition.
However, the vast majority of educators who are experienced at teaching children with intellectual disabilities in the mild and moderate ranges would say that the attitude intrinsic to democratic deliberation (described under the first prong) presupposes abilities of logical inference and abstract reasoning the children simply cannot develop.47 The account set forth in this chapter of the moral right of children in Group A to receive an appropriate education thus applies, but in a limited way, to children who exemplify intellectual disability in the mild or moderate ranges.
In the case of such children (those with mild or moderate intellectual disability conditions), one key educational objective would be to impart knowledge to them about the public dimensions of their moral world but in a manner limited to utilizing educational materials and methods appropriate for the children’s respective individual capabilities of awareness and understanding.
Persons with intellectual disability conditions in the severe and the profound ranges of intellectual disability, according to the DSM-5, “have little understanding of written language or of concepts involving numbers, quantity, and money.” Their “spoken language is quite limited in terms of vocabulary and grammar,” and “may be single words or phrases.” Persons with severe intellectual disability conditions require “support for all activities of daily living,” and “cannot make responsible decisions regarding well-being of self or others.”48
The DSM-5 profile of profound intellectual disability characterizes the condition in terms of even more limited capabilities in the conceptual, social, and practical domains than those enumerated immediately above. For example, according to the DSM-5, “[t]he [profoundly disabled] individual expresses his or her desires and emotions largely through nonverbal non-symbolic communication,” and “is dependent on others for all aspects of daily physical care, health, and safety.”49
It is apparent that the objective of imparting knowledge and abilities central to (a) American democratic deliberation and (b) having a reasonable chance for success in seeking self-fulfillment, as understood in terms of the two-pronged analysis, are inapplicable to children with severe or profound intellectual disability conditions. These children, nonetheless, have a moral right to receive an appropriate K–12 education. The justification for this belief, however, requires substantially more analysis. This will be developed in the next chapter, which concerns the zero-reject policy in American law of special education.
Conclusion
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.