Teaching Chemistry to the Physically Handicapped In April 1980, the American Chemical Society sponsored a workshop In Washington. D.C.. funded by the National Science Foundation. to develop a series of guidelines f w teaching chemistry to the physically handicapped. The workshop was organized to help teachers make the field of chemisby accessible to handicappedyoung p w p k who chwse to take chemieby courser, The f w m t of the wcikshop was designed to stimulate maximum response from the participants in three broad areas-teaching chemistry to hearing-impaired, visually-impaired,and motar-impaired students. The overall goal of this workshop was to facilitate the enhance of physically handicapped students into chemistry in two wavs: bv develooino .~ and disseminatino lo chemisbv teachers an aumaitative. oractical auide to the teachino of chemistw to handicaooed .. StUdmtS in both me c assrwm and lne laboratory, an0 by senshizag teachers to lne specla1 proolems al hanacappea slaents Smce tne phys cal and otner accommodat ons needed by the handicapped are n ghly variable. the proposed@ode cou d no1 oe prescr ptwe The plans were to provide reasonable, overall guidance on the basis that specific problems will be solved most expeditiously and economically at the local level. h e product of t b workshop is a manual lo be distributed to the faculties of about 2000 colleges and universities where chemistry is taught. While these guidelines address generic problems, it was apparent during the course of the wwkshop that experience with numerous practical considerations was already at hand. The following nine papers describe some practical solutions and observations which became apparent during the course of the workshop: these papers should be considered complementary to the ACS guidelines which will be published soon.
~.~~.
~
~
-
Attitudinal Barriers for the Physically Handicapped G. A. Crosby Washington State University, Pullman. WA 99164 The responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of im~airment.be ~rovideda meanineful education has been assumed by the sdciety and incorporated into Federal law. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 reads in part: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United
States.. . ,shall solely by reason of his handicap be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
-
Indications of comnliance bv institutions of hieher education are seen everywhere-ramps, widened doors, the installation of elevators. Concomitant rumblines about excessive cost, unwarranted government interference, and impossible facultv hurdens are heard also. Where d l it all lead'! w i t h major concern focussed on the removal of physical barriers for the handicapped, one may lose sight of the most rigid barriers of all, the attitudes of both students and faculty that form invisible hurdles for the handicapped, barriers that are based on a conventional wisdom of misconception, prejudice, and stereotyping. One can realistically ask, what good will come of removing physical barriers to access, if, a t the top of the ramp, the more formidable intangible barriers remain. Faculty members are the key to higher education. Without a ~ o s i t i v attitude e toward students, little of educational value can he transmitted in the classroom or lahoratc,ry. Because of lack of information, the otherwise effective teacher, reactinr to fears of more work and additional responsihility;may de: velop a negative attitude toward the bandicapped. He may invoke impossible rules based on stereotyped ideas about the chances of success of the handicapped or may assume an attitude of pity and thus compromise standards. Neither response is necessary or desirable. Equal access, to be more than a charade, requires faculty
commitment. Accepting the handicapped student may just mean that-acceptance. Accommodating the handicapped may mean patience, flexibility, a willingness to adapt, an attitude of encouragement, and, most of all, understanding. In a word, to comply with the letter and spirit of the law, faculty must develon sensitivitv. .. an increased awareness of the needs. aspirations, and potential accomplishments of all students, not iust the handicamed. Is thisask~ngtoo much of us? Per. ha& it is, a t least &the short term. Many faculty members are alreadv overworked, harrassed, and depressed. Adjusting t o handicapped students in the classroom will require reorganization of priorities, not only to accommodate that but also to benefit all students. Perhaps this is where faculty development or faculty renewal programs might begin, hv askine facultv the ouestions: "Just what are the oriorities of higher education?" or more pertinently, "What are your nriorities?" Honest answers mieht be soberine. The articles that follow focussttention on t i e educational needs of the physically handicapped, particularly their problems attendant to obtaining an education in chemistry. Runnine through them is the theme that accommodating the handicapped in the classroom and laboratory need n i t be traumatic; in fact, what is good pedagogy for teaching the bandicapped is likely to be good pedagogy for teaching all students. Some handicapped students will require unconventional practices, hut the extra work and time need not be excessive. Handicapped students desire the opportunity to benefit from the same academic experience as other students. They exDect s u o ~ o r tencouraeement. . and understandine. Indeed. they also want the right to fail, but on reasonable terms. w i t h careful Dlannine, sensitivitv. iust Dlain . . commitment. and . . common sense, colleges and universities can provide the academic experience guaranteed to the handicapped hy law.
-
Volume 58 Number 3 March 1981
205
