Schrodinger's Cat

In 1935 Erwin Schrodinger proposed a paradox that he used to illustrate a quantum mechanics point concerning the nature of wave particles.  In the paradox, a cat is placed in a steel box.  Also in the box is a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, a radioactive material, and a hammer.  Should the radioactive material decay, the Geiger counter picks up the decay and activates the hammer, which then breaks the vial of poison, releasing it and killing the cat.  Since the radioactive decay involved would be a random process, it is not possible to predict when the poison would be released, killing the cat.  As a result, theoretically, since the cat’s state is tied directly to the decay of the radioactive atom, the cat, like the atom, exists in a condition known as superposition.  It is both alive and dead at the same time.  It exists in both states equally until the box is opened and the cat is actually observed, then it assumes one state or the other. 

In many ways, when we look at proposing special education services for a student and begin to implement them, those services are very similar to the cat in Schrodinger’s experiment.  Are these services going to be effective or not?  We really don’t know.  We may have expectations, but until they are actually tried and evaluated for that child, we don’t know.  Until we open the box, we don’t know if the services are successful or not.  The child is much like the atom in the paradox.  How the child reacts over time is unique to that child – random, or as we describe it – the child is unique.  What happens when the individual child and the services interact will differ in some way from every other child receiving services.

Everyone knows that, right?  We do, but it is also easy to put blinders on ourselves without realizing it.  Over time we come to expect a specific reaction to a specific service from a child with a specific set of special needs.  Sometimes we forget the random variable.  What we sometimes forget is that the child is unique and will respond uniquely to a set of services. 

Often this happens without realizing we are doing it.  As a parent, I’ve seen that happen to my son, Ian.  Being deaf and having coreoathetoid cerebral palsy is not a standard combination of issues.  He followed by about two years a particular student with a similar diagnosis into a class with a specific teacher.  The teacher’s response was that there was no problem, she had taught a student with the same issues.  The problem was that the two students were actually very different people and responded differently to how those services were provided.  This particular teacher, even after numerous discussions, never really understood that particular component of the whole special education equation.  As a parent, it was incredibly frustrating.  As a teacher it can also be very frustrating if you are discounting the random element in the equation.  Why isn’t this service working with this child when it works for a different child?   The reason is that at the core of this equation, every child is unique, and the complexity of being human makes this the hardest of all elements to normalize.

So, as we work with the children we serve, be open to changing the other parts of the special education equation, instead of trying to force a child into an equation that does not work.   Of course you cannot discount tried and true services.  But realize that when all other parts of the ‘standard’ equation are the same, the variable is the child.  You cannot change the child in the equation to make the specific equation work.  When the equation is not working, then it probably is time to look at changing the other elements – the services – so the equation will work for that student.