by Stuart Wittenstein, Ed.D.
(Editor’s Note: The following article which appeared, as an open letter, in the Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Visual Impairment (DVI) Spring 2000 “Quarterly” is reprinted with the permission of the publisher, and the author, Dr. Stuart Wittenstein, who is Superintendent of the California School for the Blind and Visually Impaired, and the President of DVI. We thank Dr. Wittenstein for sharing this perceptive and compelling article with us. It seems particularly relevant to recent controversy surrounding definitions of “least restrictive environment(s)” in public and private schools, and the concept of “segregated employment” in industrial workshop settings.)
If you consistently use the word “segregated” as an antonym for “inclusive” when referring to specialized educational programs, regional centers, and special schools serving blind and visually impaired learners, I am asking you to reconsider this choice.
The word “segregated” is so loaded with emotional baggage, the result of hundreds of years of slavery, discrimination, and racism, that its use produces serious miscommunication. For example, individuals may infer from the use of the word “segregated” that one type of educational placement option is considered morally superior to another. This was not the intent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which, while stressing the need to educate children with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate, makes clear that for some children a different type of placement may be necessary. In fact, the word “segregated” does not appear anywhere in the legislation or the regulations of the IDEA.
“Segregation” recalls for us that children of different races were sent to separate schools for political, social, economic, and cultural reasons. Segregation policy was not carried out because these children had different learning needs. These acts of racism are not analogous [to] the excellent services being provided by programs, schools, and centers that are meeting the unique educational needs of some children with disabilities. Better descriptors for such programs include “specialized” or “disability specific.” These terms are less judgmental and more accurate than the word “segregated.”
Professionals who provide disability specific services to blind children in specialized schools believe that they are providing a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for these children in accordance with IDEA and with best practices in their field. Additionally, many of these programs are community based, involve blind students with non-disabled students in local programs to the maximum extent appropriate, and have set goals to provide these intensive services for short periods of time and return youngsters to their home districts with the skills they need to succeed. These schools are fulfilling a vital need in the educational service delivery systems of their regions. Such programs are particularly suited to meet the unique needs of some children who have low prevalence disabilities like blindness and deaf-blindness. The dedicated and caring professionals working in these schools do not believe that their schools are in any way morally inferior.
Unfortunately, many speakers of national prominence, legal resources, and even judges and hearing officers continue to misuse the word “segregated.” It is my hope that by calling attention to the use of the word “segregated” in this context, these individuals will be able to modify their language so that specialized programs will not be portrayed as morally inferior choices for children, but instead as part of the full array of placement options necessary for all children to receive a free appropriate public education.