"It might open the floodgates"

I have heard this given as a reason for not accelerating a child, not moving a child to another class even when the current placement isn’t working, not allowing a child to use a computer or iPad despite recommendations from professionals that they need the accommodation in their learning, and in a handful of other scenarios.

It is a quick and easy answer, but one that (I hope) is one mostly given without much thought.

Others might ask …..
The real reason often seems to be a worry that if one gets something, others might also want it too. It is not hard to see where the worry might come from. We are social beings, and there is safety in belonging. One way we seek to belong is to be as similar to the next person as we can. We are well aware that society often deals with outliers by exclusion. Yet we are also very conscious that what is required to fit in changes constantly so we jump on new trends and look for (safe) ways to get an edge within the herd so that we aren’t left behind. The notion that someone having something you don’t means they might have more (and thus you have less) might be part of a worry about feeling left behind. As parents we are even more conscious of our children not being left behind.

But what does belonging have to do with denying an acceleration, the shift to different class, or a child being able to use an aid to help them develop and demonstrate their potential?

My feeling is that schools worry that allowing one child to have an opportunity (even one for which there is a demonstrated need) might mean others want the same opportunity and that means they worry that it will make more work, cost more, or that it might resulting unhappy parents should their child not be allowed the same opportunity. These reasons effectively place convenience or structures already in place above the needs of the child, often without the realisation that that is the case, rather than placing the needs of the child at the centre of the decision making. 

We have National Goals for Schooling in the 21st Century and these are reviewed every 10 years. The 1999 Adelaide Declaration stated that ‘schooling should develop fully the talents and capacities of all children”. The current goals were outlined in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young People (2008) build on the previous declaration and state that Australian schooling will promote excellence and equity, and that all young Australians will become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active  and informed citizens.

If the goal of education is to develop potential then there is going to need to be variations in how that is achieved, because we are well aware that there is variety in levels of potential.

Access to opportunity is a matter of equity. Fair doesn’t mean everyone gets the same, it means everyone being able to access what they need. Consider what would happen if we insisted everyone gets the same (or no-one is allowed to be different) using the example of a child with diabetes. Because someone needs insulin, everyone should have it. In this situation, what will help one child is likely to be lethal to many others. Or, because we don’t want to encourage difference, the child who needs it, is denied the opportunity. It simply doesn’t make sense and we would be outraged if this occurred.

Returning to the concern about opening the floodgates…… there is a way to avoid the worried about potential flood of parents wanting something for their child.

Developing a system for addressing requests means those who truly need the intervention are able to access it, and those who would ‘like’ it (or think their child 'might' need it), must demonstrate the need.

If there is a system for addressing the request, a procedure for guiding the decision making, outlining what information is needed, and any additional questions which may need to be addressed, make it much easier to deal with. It can be a simple flowchart outlining the steps and requirements so that it ensures decisions are made based on need. Everyone is clear about the reasoning for or against a decision, it largely removes subjectivity and can allay any suggestions of favouritism or similar.

 

You meet the criteria. Or you don’t.

 

Ideally of course, the procedure would also look at what alternative interventions may be needed for those who don’t quite meet the criteria.

And the criteria need to be reasonable, and based on what the research shows. That is something I will be talking about in my next post.