Here are my thoughts:
I believe we need to examine several variables in this situation:
1. The level of learning-disability of the particular child
2. The level of wealth of the prospective family
3. The public relations issues surrounding the possibility of the school becoming labeled the “LD†school
4. The size of the particular school
5. The number of Jewish schools in a particular community
6. The availability of resources outside the school
7. The mission/vision/philosophy of any given school
8. And, of course, as most have asked, “What is best for the child?â€
And I am sure are there are ten more variables I have not included. For me, the question is both ethical and practical and we must ensure that the practical does not place us in the position of “moral hazard.â€
If, for example, the family is able and willing to provide a $2-3 million endowment for special needs kids, special needs being defined as “light†needs such as dyslexia, ADHD, executive function processing, etc., and if the community-at-large has available LD professionals who can handle such needs, then the school should provide for the child/ren with no ethical qualms whatsoever, in my view. In such a situation, the moral hazard diminishes to almost zero, we are doing what is best for the child, and the school has made a friend who perhaps can help out many others in the future.
What the school may want to determine, however, is the PR impact of launching such a program as mentioned in point 3 above. If launching such a program, even with full funding labels the school in a negative way, then the Head/Board must determine if they wish to walk down that path.
Herein, however, may lie the real ethical issue of not helping a child because of concern for the overall reputation of the school, or should we help the child despite that challenge? Seventy years after the Shoah, the answer to this question sits heavily upon our hearts and historic memory. If we live in a large community, say Los Angeles or New York, where there are scores and even a hundred Jewish options, the challenge and onus for any individual school is far less. However, sometimes in these larger markets, the PR issues are far greater due to heavy competition for the “best†students. In a “single school†community, and given ample funding, the answer may be much simpler since that school may feel obligated to serve everyone.
To Dr. Steve Brown’s concern about trying to be all things to all people, the point is well taken, although I might agree or disagree depending upon the circumstances of the special needs. In the case of “light†needs, and where ample funding and LD professionals may be employed, the school can increase its portfolio to include these kids; however, if the LD needs are more serious, say wheel-chair bound kids with CP, deaf or blind children, Down’s syndrome children, and so forth, then an entirely new discussion may ensue. Even if the funding is now $5 million for endowment for a “heavy†special needs program, we must now examine the physical plant needs, availability of professionals in this area, cultural shift of the entire school, and a reexamination of a school’s mission. This situation rises to an entirely different ethical level, and no matter how much money is on the table, the dollars may never be enough, especially if a mission alteration is in order, to justify such a change in direction. This is especially true, in my view for a small school where the plant and personnel are simply not available. However, in a much larger school and community, adding a “heavy†LD program as a community service may be very attractive and fit into an already existing mission. Of course, again, funding is the key.
Finally, I’d like to add to this discussion a case in point – New Community Jewish High School (de Toledo High School effective July 1, 2015). Three years ago, we contracted with an outside vendor who specialized in learning challenges to provide a “light†special needs program on our campus. We teamed with the vendor to recruit students for the program. The students would be NCJHS students, receive all of our services, play on sports teams, be involved in theatre, clubs, student council, etc., but would receive a special course-by-course program depending upon their particular needs. They could also take our regular courses as appropriate and their transcripts would reflect their special program.
Doing this was, in L.A., a big PR risk, one which we were willing to take. Over time, the vendor disbanded. This year we decided to keep the program, integrate it into our overall budget and offerings, and call it “Blended Learning.†We continued to embrace the students currently in the program and now offer the program to others who are applying for admission for the 2015-16 school year. We are fully funding the program’s director and special teachers.
Whereas we do not widely advertise the program because of PR and competition concerns (no other serious private school in L.A. would dare advertise such a program unless that was their primary mission, yet, everyone quietly makes accommodations for such kids), the program has been a boon to our culture and has had zero impact on our school’s overall reputation. We receive no extra funding for this program yet we are large enough to make it work financially. My angst and ethical issue arises from the question of, “When do we/should we go seriously public with our program?†Whereas our school can claim some high ethical ground for offering the program, we cannot yet be too self-righteous due to the fact we do not advertise the program in any significant way except for word-of-mouth.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2016 09:12AM by mlb.
