This past Thursday I attended a deliberation in the Fraser Street Commons about educating children and young adults with special needs (both mental and physical) titled “Educate Me: Providing Equitable Education for Children with Special Needs”. When I first arrived, I was shocked by their turn out. I showed up just before the event began and I had to stand, but several others were standing as well. I went because the topic was something that interested me and because it was my friend’s group, but I’m also thinking that people might’ve been waiting to the last minute to attend a deliberation. Either way, that place was poppin’. Also, unlike my group’s deliberation, this group decided to move all of the tables out from the center of the room and formed a circle with all of the chairs. I believe that this style of deliberation is not as effective as simply filling up the room with all of the tables because facing everyone adds an unnecessary layer of pressure that is stripped away when everyone is spread out. It is nice when most of the pressure is on the presenters (the approach teams for example) not those who you are trying to get to speak during the deliberation (the audience who chose to attend).

But onto the deliberation…

I was very pleased with the depth of knowledge the approach teams had because I learned a lot about the structure of special needs education in America. The different approaches, however, overlapped in an odd way that has led me to essentially forget what each one was because the conversations revolved around similar, if not the same, topics from approach to approach. One unique point that was brought up was how the government must provide intensives to special needs schooling because, at the end of the day, it is almost a business. This, while it is very harsh, is a reality that people need to consider when this topic is brought up. With that being said, other ideas to combat this issue were not as good, at least in my opinion. One proposed solution to the under-funding of special needs education is that the government simply prints more money because there is no longer a gold standard. While this is all theoretically possible, the economic impact that would have on the US, and the world for that matter would be catastrophic. This topic specifically was not shut down immediately, which is hilarious, but also concerning insofar as (John wya?) this solution will never happen and thus should have been stopped immediately. Allowing the conversation to go off on tangets will almost always happen, sure, but I felt as though too many people in the group wanted to share their personal experiences as they relate to the topic. But, having most of the group talk about a time where their family or friends were impacted by sub-par special needs education is not the most efficient use of the group’s time and not constructive towards the ultimate goal of a “some-what-of-a-solution” as it relates to the topic.

While I really did sound off on the group I watched, I did enjoy most of the deliberation. Many of the moments were heart-felt, and I was very engaged throughout. The group did an excellent job of getting people involved, especially considering the chair set up. There was, however, one person who dominated almost every conversation which took away from the energy of the room at times, but I was very happy with my selection of deliberations.