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.
