The Ethics of Exclusion

-On page 212, Dr. Glanz quotes Karagiannis, Stainback, and Stainback (2000) that
caution: Genuine inclusion does not mean dumping students with disabilities into
general education classes without support for teachers or students. As the
discussion of inclusion gains traction, there needs to be an equal allotment of
resources for teachers to adequately deal with a wider array of students with
disabilities! In one class I teach, 8 out of the 15 students have IEPs, which detail
issues ranging from autism, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety, angermanagement problems and obviously ADD. While it is great that all these students
can learn together the teacher needs support to go along with these wide-ranging
challenges!
- On page 219 Dr. Glanz equates the concept of social justice with
and the overall attribute of justice that should be practiced by Jews. I would
respectfully argue that the commandment of pursuing justice has no relevance to
the idea of social justice. The Gemara in Shevuos (30a) clearly explains this mitzvah
to mean that one should give his friend the benefit of the doubt. The Rambam
(Hilchos Sanhedrin, Perek 21) adds that this is specifically meant for a judge
presiding over a court case. Moreover, how does the overarching idea of the
reparation of wrongdoing through civil mediation - have bearing on a discussion on
whether it is more effective to lump many types of students together or separate
them into groups? The debate on whether a Class B is more effective is an
ongoing discussion, and while it is nicer to put everyone together, it isnt
necessarily more effective. I dont think that invoking the mitzvah of should be
a deciding factor.
-On page 223 Dr. Glanz quotes Rawls (1971) who clarifies that Equity, not equality
(i.e., getting the same thing), is achieved given the fact both students needs are
accurately and unbiasedly assessed. I absolutely agree that fair isnt equal, and
that every student should be taught and assessed . On the other hand,
why is it a given that inclusion is automatically the right path for all students? This
assumption suffers from the same one-size-fits-all thinking that gave rise to the idea
of inclusion! If, it is logically and thoughtfully decided that a specific student would
benefit from inclusion, then great! There are some students that would suffer from
inclusion! I had a student last year who, for most of his time in school was an
underachiever. Last year he was pulled into a smaller group which I taught and he
had a chance to be at the top of this group academically. To say that he shone is an
understatement! For this student, exclusion was exactly the fire he needed to
motivate him to try his hardest.
-On page 229 Dr. Glanz quotes Oakes (1985) who claims he has uncovered the
fallacies inherent in homogeneous grouping and convincingly debunked
explanations for maintaining its use. I apologize for my skepticism, but this seems
to me like the ying-yang effect. It was widely believed that small student to
teacher ratios benefit students, so the United States mandated in many states to
reduce classroom sizes and create such individualized groupings of students. Now
we are seeing a reversal in the trend. The idea of acceptance and tolerance is such

an important Western value that we are afraid to voice the idea that differentiating
can actually mean separating students into a different group. I remember seeing a
Dilbert comic where management hired a consultant who recommended
decentralizing staff and letting each department work on their own. As soon as this
is implemented, another consultant recommends the exact opposite: management
should all be centralized together under one manager. I feel like the
recommendations in education can fluctuate similarly!
-On page 234 Dr. Glanz argues that,
Early Jewish education systems clearly saw the value in inclusionary practice
and constructivism. The gemara quoted at the outset of this sub-section
(Berakhot 63b), explains that we learn be-havruta because of the different
styles of the two participants (note that they are, ideally, actively engaging in
learning, as opposed to listening to a lecture
While I agree that learning bchavrusa, in general, is a wonderful way of learning, I
dont see how this type of learning is an example of inclusionary practices. As
anyone who has tried to find a chavrusa knows, it is very sensitive and sometimes
difficult to find a good match as a chavrusa! Two chavrusot dont just sit down
together in the name of inclusion and hope for the best! Most Yeshivos have a
chavrusa tumul in which a shadchan, of sorts, tries to match the learning styles,
intelligence, level of hasmada and personality so that a perfect match can be
found! If anything, this highlights how similar learning styles tend to fluctuate
toward each other, rather than the opposite.
The Limits of Testing
I was shocked to learn that the concept of eugenics and the sterilisation of those
with disabilities began in America! Certainly we can learn from this that a seemingly
innocuous theory like Social Darwinism can sound like theoretical musing but
actually result in mass murder. I think that the history of testing doesnt negate the
benefits of testing, however. Its important to know ones strengths and weaknesses
and be ready to hear that one has weaknesses.
Another point that stood out for me was when Dr. Glanz spoke about Howard
Gardners multiple intelligences and how we have begun to appreciate different
types of intelligences. I recently pulled out a student to coach him in Gemara and he
asked me if I was tutoring him because he was stupid. I dont know if everyone
would agree with my response but I answered that everyone is stupid. I explained
that we all have areas in which we are smart and other areas in which we are
stupid! I highlighted that he could use extra help in Gemara and I could use some
extra help in basketball! Just because I need help in one area does not make me
stupid as a person.
Inclusion and Mainstreaming
In the article, the authors argue that inclusion is a democratic right one that is
mandated by Thomas Jeffersons declaration of equal opportunity for all. The idea
that there could be separate but equal classrooms for disabled are seen as a

reality that isnt realistically attainable. What I liked about the article was the idea of
Careful Inclusion. This is an idea that I would support a case-by-case decisionbased approach to inclusion.
I was recently impressed by the decision of the Yeshiva I went to as a child to put in
a functional elevator for one student who joined and could not walk. My Yeshiva
also, I think, represents the epitome of inclusion in that it houses the only
international dead yeshiva for Bochurim within its walls. For me, as a high school
student, it was very educational and informative to be friends with other boys my
age who were deaf, but otherwise quite the same.
Multicultural Education
I liked Dr. Glanzs quote from his father to never treat others the way Nazis treated
the Jews. It reminded me of the story with the Klausenberger Rebbe who,
reportedly, was being beaten, when a Nazi demanded of him, You think you are still
the chosen people? Look where you are and look where I am! The Klausenberger
Rebbe responded, As long as I am the one being beaten, not beating others, then I
am sure that Im part of the chosen nation.
Dr. Glanz also challenges teachers to instruct their students to think globally. I think
this is a great point. I always wanted to bring a newspaper to class and read through
articles - in the goal of expressing how one should approach and interpret current
events in the world around us. I do not know if parents would approve of this
which is what is whats holding me back from trying this out.