Like many others, my town has baseball leagues for children and teens.  The park district building was overrun the other day with kids and their parents signing up for these leagues.  Most of the kids ran (or at least walked really fast) up to the door excited to get their team assignments.  One boy, probably about 11 or 12, clearly had an orthopedic issue of some kind affecting the use of his legs.  He walked up to the door at a slower pace than most.  

As he did so, I began to think, “I wonder what accom…”  It was there that I stopped myself.  I was about to say, “I wonder what accommodations he will need for participating.”  I was including all physical aspects of playing baseball in my thought process – batting, throwing and catching the ball as well as running.  I stopped myself because I realized, much to my dismay, that I was making a judgment about this young man’s ability in baseball overall based on what might be a challenge in one area (running).  I had no way of knowing if his orthopedic issue would affect his batting, throwing or catching.  Maybe he is a home run hitter – the next Albert Pujols (who was the home run leader in 2009)!  Maybe he has an incredible arm and will be the youngest person ever to break into the 100 mph club!  The point is that he will never show his full potential if those around him place a cap on their expectations of him assuming the need for accommodation or, even worse, assuming inability. 

This caused me to consider the effect of expectations on students with communication impairments.  Judgments are made about their abilities to understand language, enjoy social interactions, participate and succeed in academic activities because of difficulty in one area – communication.   Just as the presence of an orthopedic impairment does not negate one’s ability to play baseball, the presence of communication impairment does not negate one’s ability to perform academically. 

 In 1985, Donnellan suggested that educational decisions be made based on the “criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption” which she defines as follows. 

The criterion of Least Dangerous Assumption holds that in the absence of conclusive data, educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that students will be able to function independently as adults.    

Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 141-150. 

Using this criterion, we can say that there is no conclusive data saying that the baseball-playing boy will need accommodations.  If he is ever going to grow up to play baseball independently with other adults, he needs the opportunity to play and play as independently as possible now.  

Following the same logic, there is no conclusive data that students with severe communication impairments cannot perform academically.  There is, however, danger in not providing the opportunity for them to do so in that they will not learn the skills needed to function independently as adults.  Therefore, the “least dangerous assumption” would say that we need to provide opportunities for such performance to take place and expect it to occur. 

My initial expectations of the young man at the park district would have limited his opportunity to demonstrate his capabilities.  What effect are your expectations having on your students with severe communication impairments? 

For more information on the “Least Dangerous Assumption”, review the Article-at-a-Glance at in the Articles-at-a-Glance Learning Path on DynaVox’s Implementation Toolkit.