I want to deal with a possible objection to my views on educational placement (which you can find described here).

I think the universal inclusionists – those who want all children to be educated in the mainstream – use rhetorical trickery to paper over the weaknesses in their arguments.  They define “inclusion” as being a state in which all students are meaningfully and fully included as part of a mainstream school community.  Any case where a student is not meaningfully and fully included in their mainstream school is therefore dismissed as a failure of inclusion, not a failure of mainstreaming.  With more resources, the argument goes, it would be possible to adapt the mainstream so that it will work for everyone.

This is a perfect example of an unfalsifiable theory.  That’s not a good thing – we want theories to be falsifiable, because falsifiable theories can be replaced when they stop working.  An unfalsifiable theory might be totally wrong, but because it can “explain” any possible challenge, people can keep on believing in it.

The universal inclusion model is unfalsifiable, because it can dismiss any problem with the mainstream as evidence that we have not yet reached the idealized state of inclusion.  The model uses this rhetorical trickery so that it never has to consider the idea that there might sometimes be cases where achieving inclusion in the mainstream environment is not possible, or the idea that we might really need alternatives to the mainstream.

In truth, our ability to include everyone in one environment is going to be limited.  Students differ wildly in their abilities and disabilities, and often one student’s needs will be opposed to those of another student.  One student might need structure, while another might need flexibility.  Often, a barrier to inclusion will be a fundamental feature of a mainstream school environment, like the noise levels that make school miserable and overwhelming for people with sensory sensitivities.  And how can we fully, seamlessly include Deaf students when their peers don’t understand ASL?

Thus, even if it were possible to dramatically expand the resources available to schools, there’s no guarantee that it would be possible to create a universally accessible, totally-inclusive environment.

But I mentioned I wanted to preempt an objection.

I just want to clarify that this argument can’t be flipped against me.  Yes, I know that my proposal would involve some substantial changes to the current system.  But where the universal inclusion model demands investments of vast resources, with no clear upper limit on the amount of investment that might be required to achieve meaningful inclusion for everyone, the changes I’m suggesting aren’t likely to involve costs horrifically in excess of the current system.  The changes might even be cheaper.  Only insufficient interest and insufficient will are stopping us from implementing the choice-based placement model that I prefer.

As for falsifiability, my arguments are based on the idea that students who choose to flee the mainstream can do better in alternative environments.  That was my personal experience, certainly.  If we offer the options that I describe, and if people give them a good try and find that they don’t work, people can go back to the mainstream.  That would falsify my theory.  (But I don’t think that’s likely to happen.)