Wow – Moore’s writing about the concept of inclusion is eye-opening, to say the least. For decades, our educational model has been focused on identifying and ‘correcting’ behaviour, personality, and learning techniques among atypical students that do not conform to the standard norms. At a time when society is becoming increasingly accepting of behavioural preferences and non-conformist movements (i.e. LGBTQ+, women’s rights, freedom of choice), it is only logical that the same flexibility should be provided in educational settings that involve our youngest, most vulnerable population. That is to say, we should be teaching our children from a young age that our individual differences are things to be *celebrated*, not corrected. One sentence of Moore’s that stuck out to me, in particular, echoed this sentiment: “Teaching to diversity and inclusion is where we value the characteristics that *are* diverse, and not try and homogenize them” (Moore, 2016). I completely agree with this shift in approach and frankly, I’m rather surprised that this topic of discussion is being raised so late in society’s shift towards liberalism.

Wonder – Generally speaking, I found Moore’s writing, presentation of ideas, and her use of various social media platforms to be a successful, well-rounded delivery of this information. Putting a face to the name of the author (via her YouTube) channel is surprisingly helpful in remembering her ideas later on. Her bowling analogy was also effective at conveying her points in an easily comprehensible manner. I suppose the one ‘Wonder’ thought that I had in reading / watching her content was her advocacy for shifting our ‘aim’, so-to-speak, towards the pins that are hardest to hit (i.e. the children that are most left behind in traditional teaching methods). In no way do I oppose the idea of catering our teaching more closely to the specific needs of more marginalized students (Moore specifically references students with autism and down syndrome here), however, I wonder if completely shifting our focus towards these students would still best serve the group as a whole? Moore claims that this new approach is closely in line with the Universal Design for Learning and frequently, the supports we build for these ‘outside’ students are exactly what the ‘inside’ students need as well. Is this true? I wish Moore had spoken more to this point because the rest of her presentation depends on it. I suppose my only concern is that if we focus so completely on delivering a full learning experience for marginalized students (which I think is a great thing to do), will we still be able to keep the remaining students completely engaged? Do the learning needs of both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ students truly overlap to the extent that Moore claims they do?

Moore, Shelley. (2016). One Without The Other: Stories of Unity Through Diversity and Inclusion.