18. COMMENTARY Dunn's (1968) challenge needs to be reiterated. The conscience of special educators needs to rub up against morality. In large measure we have been at the mercy of the general education establishment in that we accept problem pupils who have been referred out of the regular grades. In this way, we contribute to the delinquency of the general educators since we remove the pupils that are problems for them and thus reduce their need to deal with individual differences.... I contend that not only special educators, but all educators need to reconsider their professional mission. All the research cited above indicates that each individual presents individual differences. No two students are alike, and to consider educating the masses as the mission of modern education is to miss the point of all education. Whether the learner is a child, adolescent, young or older adult, all teachers must consider the differences in the learner. Thus, sending any student, except the most exceptional learner like the MBD or physically, visually, or auditory handicapped learner, to a special class is to abdicate one's professional teaching duty. And these three latter groups need only be separated for part of the day. There is a distinct advantage in including all learners of all exceptionalities in most classes. Instead of separating the gifted learners into special classes where they sometimes develop a superior attitude and posture in comparison with the rest of the children, I suggest the following strategy for them. First, the gifted children are not to be labeled as "gifted." They are told that because they possess certain proficiencies in specific subjects, they are being encouraged to participate with some of the teachers as "junior teachers' aides." They are assigned to a classroom for part of the day (generally during what still are called "study halls") and work with any of the children who are having difficulties in subjects in which these gifted excel. Second, they are not separated from the mainstream classes for any reason except to teach others. In this capacity, they learn to be sensitive to other's with less specific skills than they possess in a given area. Third, they learn to appreciate their specific skills. Knowing that they are special only in this one area may keep them from developing a superior attitude about their learning abilities and keep them from comparing themselves to other. They would receive special attention from their cooperating teachers only as far as necessary so that they can effectively tutor their peers. Their talents will not be buried in some special class where only the other gifted children can appreciate them, but will be sharing what the Creator gave them as part of their human responsibility to take care of those in need. Lastly, I maintain that the gifted children will receive far more than they ever give to the other children. In the traditional "gifted classes" they only receive from others. They do not give back to anyone. By the time they leave school, they come to accept that they are so unique that they never recover from it their entire lives. In tutoring their peers, they do find out they are unique, but only in their specific areas like being proficient at math, science, or English. When they graduate someday, they can and will take pride in their having contributed to the success of some of their peers' graduating alongside of them. Citing Dunn (1986) again: Much of special education will continue to be a sham of dreams unless we immerse ourselves into the total environment of our children from inadequate homes and backgrounds and insist on a comprehensive ecological push--with a quality educational program as part of it. This is hardly compatible with our prevalent practice of expediency in which we employ many untrained and less than master teachers to increase the number of special day classes in response to the pressures of waiting lists. Because of these pressures from the school system, we have been guilty of fostering quantity with little regard for quality of special education instruction. Our first responsibility is to have an abiding commitment to the less fortunate children we aim to serve. Our honor, integrity, and honesty should no longer be subverted and rationalized by what we hope and may believe we are doing for these children--hopes and beliefs which have little basis in reality (p. 20). Special education must be eliminated or the stigma will continue to infect the children it is intended to assist. In the late 1960's, Head Start was created to provide a foundation for education among the less fortunate. Research (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1989) indicates it is one of the most successful of all human service programs developed in the last 30 years. Since its inception it is has been underfunded even though it works. Head Start teachers earn on the average of $14,000 dollars (1991 figures) and must drive their own cars and maintain caseloads of 10-15 students. Interviews with many Head Start teachers (Clearfield County, PA, Head Start, 1993) reveal that most of them enjoyed what they were doing, were highly committed to making a difference in the lives of the children they were working with, but could not afford to live on the meager salary they were paid. Even though they were providing an essential service to children with social, economic, and environmental needs, their efforts were not fully supported by the very educational system which purported to be doing what was in these childrens' best interest. Attacking traditional education from another perspective, in 1993 in Pennsylvania, a Competency Based Education Program is being seriously considered as a way to revolutionize the process of education in the Commonwealth. There is serious opposition to system. The Pennsylvania State Teachers' Association gives "lip service" to supporting the proposal. Many parents are upset, because the change is destroying "school" as they knew it. The school system will no longer be just a modern day care for their children. Students will have to demonstrate competencies in many new and unique areas. No longer will "time spent sitting in class" be considered as criteria for completion. Educators will have to teach so that their students will be able to meet the state mandated requirements for graduation. The exceptional children will receive unprecedented assistance in meeting the educational competencies necessary to graduate. Monies from the Commonwealth education budget will be more equitably distributed in order to provide all students the same opportunity to successfully complete their high school education. This is a blessing in disguise. By enforcing a new set of criteria for Commonwealth students, quality learning experiences will finally be instituted into the public school learning network. The debate will continue to rage across the Commonwealth as opposing forces present their points of view to the legislators who will eventually vote for or against the program. Whether or not the system is the best possible option for improving the quality of education in Pennsylvania is not what is important, but that the educational system is finally receiving some badly needed focus after so many years of "mass producing" students who are increasingly becoming semi-literate and turned off by the "Second Wave Industrial School System." In order for all children to receive what they need, the 21st Century Learning Networks must consider eliminating special education which disenfranchises the normal child, the one who, as quoted in the poem by Scheideman (1931) cries: ...it makes me wild-- I haven't any specialties; I'm just a normal child. It is with the normal child that the Competency Based Education Program may finally eliminate the discrimination which alienates so many of these children from fully benefiting from the very system which was part of the democratic ideal -- free education for all citizens. This does not mean that exceptional children, those with genuine learning disabilities, or those who cannot see, hear, and think normally, will be discriminated against by the educational system. What it does mean is that all children will be treated as if they are exceptional. All will receive the same attention. All will be treated as if they were equal, but equal here does not mean being labeled by a system. It means more than that. Let me explain. Children are all accepted into kindergarten and/or first grade as if they were all normal. Testing is done initially only to determine academic readiness and possibly placement. However, the essence of most testing misses the true needs of most children. Rather than test for IQ, physical disabilities, and learning readiness, a whole series of measurements could be employed to truly determine what each child's exceptionality is. For example, from the very first grade, learners (my term for all students) would be evaluated in the following areas: 1. Visual acuity - determine if sight is normal or needs correction. 2. Auditory acuity - determine if hearing is normal or needs correction. 3. Motor Skills - determine if physical coordination is normal or needs correction. 4. Learning Style Preference - determine what style of learning is preferred by the learner. 5. Aptitude Preference - determine what types of interests, career goals, learner leans toward. 6. Chronological Age Readiness - determine if child is ready for learning tasks which are anticipated in the next learning year. 7. Environmental Analysis - determine what needs the learner has in the home environment to enrich that area for successful lifelong learning. 8. Work Skills Analysis - determine what types of skills the learner has and what type of work related activities need to be fostered in him/her. This is a brief description of some of the types of measurements that could be done with all learners entering the 21st Century school environment. It is no longer acceptable to permit children to become adolescents and eventually adults with no clear vision of who they are, what they can do, and how they can best go about doing what they can and want to do. At present, education is still predicated upon the needs of an industrial and not an information civilization. There is no mention of the standard CAT and WISC tests above. It is assumed that these would be done as well to measure the child's innate, cognitive learning abilities. These tests would not be used in the traditional sense to track children and begin the process of segregating one child from another based upon skills. What they can be used for is to measure some dimensions of the learners' abilities. And that's all. These tests are sometimes used in ways which discriminate against learners. What if a learner takes one of these tests on a day when he or she has a headache and does not perform up to his or her potential? What if the learner does not do well on standardized tests? What if the learner just does not care about doing well in school, and especially, on tests of this type? Answers to all these questions can easily invalidate the results. Most educators will attest to the relative unimportance of such tests, but when the class schedules are developed and learners are placed in tracks, the test results are used to determine what learner goes where. Whether or not this is a valid method by which learners are placed is not within the scope of the discussion of this paper, but certainly leads one to question the methodology so ingrained in traditional education. Normalcy needs to be studied more thoroughly and the parameters expanded to include more learners. The narrow definitions presented earlier in this paper indicate that significant research exists which isolates too many children, adolescents, and adults from participating in mainstream as well as specialized learning. With implementation of early and consistent evaluation of all learners, many of the specialized forms of education will not be needed except in the most severe cases. What is exciting about such a major revision to the current educational system is the possibility of meeting the needs of most learners from early learning to adulthood. There is no reason for any individual's needs not to be met. If America can develop the technology to send individuals to the moon, to create missiles, like the Patriot which can demolish vehicles riding on a highway hundreds of miles away in the middle of the night, then it seems only reasonable that as educators we can create a learning system in which all individuals are equally provided for. The time has come for all learners to be treated as "special." As the poem above stated, "I'm just a normal child." And normal children become normal adults. Or do they? I think not. The exceptional child often becomes the disenfranchised adult. Research cited above indicates that little is done for the LD child and adolescent once he or she leaves high school and does not enter college or a trade school. These individuals need increased rather than decreased intervention in their adult years. As the 1990's economy rapidly shifts from an industrial to information and service orientation, the need for increased focus on these adults will be required. What appears to be occurring is just the opposite. In our school systems today, there is no overall policy to implement the kind of education for normal and special children which will effectively prepare them for the kinds of challenges facing them as the 21st century looms before them. With this specter before the nation, the current educational thinking will need a significant shift in the next decade if we are to avoid increasing numbers of disenfranchised adults from exiting the work force and becoming unemployment statistics, or worse. The only realistic solution to this dilemma is to institute as soon as possible an educational system which fosters lifelong learning. Given the rapid change in the body of knowledge available to the modern learner, archaic systems of learning emphasizing the three traditional R's is ludicrous. Learning to learn, to think, to create, must become the modern three R's. In a rapidly changing "ideascape", individuals, children, adolescents, and adults, will need such skills to adapt to the "Third Wave" (Toffler, 1980). There will no doubt be significant resistance to such a radical approach to dealing with special, normal, and disenfranchised individuals. However, the longer we wait, the greater the problems will become. Once, a learner graduated from high school, entered the work force, and remained, generally, in the same job the rest of his life. Such practices are no longer the norm, but the significant exception. Today, a college degree is no guarantee that the learner will find gainful employment in his or her chosen field. Projecting this employment condition to the special child, the possibility for successful integration into the adult working world seem precipitously bleak. Exceptional children -- disenfranchised adults: these groups of individuals will be at the ends of the continuum that the 21st century educator will need to prepare for if there is to be any integrity in the educational system itself. A subtle shift is beginning to take place as evidenced by the pockets of Third Wave thinking present in some of the states where competency based education are being considered. But will this be enough? Again, I think not. Educators in the field and in the "Ivory Tower" need to meet and strategize on how to revamp the systems nationwide so that the general population of learners will have some opportunity to participate in the American Dream. The stakes are too high for individuals as well as the nation to resist the onrushing tide of the "Third Wave" (Toffler, 1980) where what once was, is no longer, and what will become arrived yesterday. Forward.