A Chasm in School Mission Statements

In almost all schools they have a mission statement for the district or at least for that building. The mission statement is usually engraved or painted near the entrance to the school and reiterated in the school handbook.  The mission statements differ to some degree but they tend to state something like the following:

 

"We believe that children are our future. In order for them to develop they must be given the resources, and best trained teachers and staff that are available. Our goal and vision for our students is to maximize their potential, to strive for excellence in all that we do, and to insure a productive future."

If a parent with special needs ever used the "m" word--maximize or the "e" word [excellence]--at an IEP meeting, at hearing or in an  input statement, they would promptly get the old saw about Chevrolet services versus Cadillac services; most parents can recite this speech in their sleep. Maximization under existing law is the third rail of special education and should be avoided. Why is it so enshrined into the culture of regular education that anything less than striving for excellence or maximum potential would be appalling. This stark contrast reveals a lot about the opposite cultures that exist side by side: regular education seeking excellence and to maximize children's future, versus special education that is premised on appropriateness and standards of "satisfactory" educational benefits.

Now if we were to recast the school's mission statement from a special education perspective it would be unrecognizable to the parent of a regular student and would result in the prompt firing of all responsible staff. It would read something like as follows:

"We believe that children with special needs have an uncertain future at best.  It is our responsibility to fill out IEP forms and transition plans [at some point in late adolescence] that vaguely define future development. Staff training is a privileged matter and we can not insure that teachers or other staff will have any expertise to work with your child's educational needs or disability. We make no effort to maximize your child's potential and do not strive for excellence, as our only legal responsibility is to provide an appropriate education and a satisfactory educational benefit."

When the two contrasting visions are starkly compared, parents can more easily understand (although not forgive) basic violations like: no certified teachers for extended periods of time, or no teacher/therapist at all, a lack of books and materials and inadequate training; all matters that would be unspeakable on the regular education side of the district, classroom or building.  From Rowley forward we have enshrined a lesser entitlement for special education students. Students without special needs can expect and demand the maximum the school system has to offer and a concerted effort toward excellence, but special education students would be derided and foolhardy to even entertain that the same applies to them. Next time you look at the school's mission statement, think about how much of a chasm it represents, as compared to the expectation of special education students.  Until this chasm is significantly closed, we as parents of children with special needs and as attorneys and advocates have not begun to make a substantial systemic difference.

 

Comments

[Daunna Minnich]

Charlie, couldn't such a lofty mission statement be used to skewer a school for discrimination in a civil rights complaint? After all, Section 504 entitles students to equivalent services or educational programs and equal opportunity to benefit from education, right?

[Colleen McGoff Dean]

What a great resource! Do you know of a comparable site or resource in Canada? (I live near Vancouver BC, and have a 15 year daughter with Down's and right-side hemiplegia.) Thanks!