Inclusion in Education - Essay Example

?Inclusion in Education Inclusion in Education [Institute’s To what extent do you agree that the concept of inclusive educationlacks meaning? Education is considered an essential human right. It is seen as a vital means of combating poverty, and a force for social change. Schooling provides the foundation for life learning; thereby it is expected to be accessible, of high quality and sensitive to the most disadvantaged (UNESCO, n.p, 2000). To many people, inclusion is a philosophical movement that is based on the notion, that all students, irrespective of their disability and level, should attain education in the same classroom, as their peers who are of the same age. This does not mean that inclusion is similar to that of mainstreaming or integration. Mainstreaming is when the students are moved from special education classrooms to regular classrooms, thereby taken at the pace of typically developing peers without special instructions or support. However, part time inclusion in classrooms that prevents the students from becoming full time members is known as Integration (Inclusion White Paper, n.p, 2002). It is important to understand that inclusion is not only about the inclusion of disabled people. Many helpless people are excluded from education. Several disabled people are taken out of the system, as a whole (Rieser, Mason, pp.1, 1992). Hence, inclusion is about creating a system such that it accommodates all. Research shows that inclusion of disabled people has created many challenges and opportunities for mainstream educational policy. In 1990 in Thailand, Jomtien World Declaration on Education for All tried to address some of the challenges and opportunities of inclusive education. They argue that the states should have responsibility of disabled persons’ education. In addition, they should be an integral part of the mainstream education (Stubbs, pg 11-12, 2000). According to Thomas, Walker and Webb there are more ‘dimension to inclusion which goes beyond these narrowly school based considerations’ and thus ‘it is the wider notion of inclusion in society’. It is a wider notion mainly because special needs in Inclusive education should also be taken care of. Different groups of disabled people have different experiences. A child who is deaf and blind might be better off in a special school situation, rather than the mainstream school. This is because due to this disability, the child would be either uneducated or unable to keep pace with mainstream curriculum. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action has discussed some pioneering and fundamental principles of inclusion that has not been discussed previously. These includes, in terms of needs children have a wide diversity of characteristics, difference is normal, ALL children are to accommodated by schools, children with disabilities should attend neighbourhood schools, it is essential for disabled to be a part of community, proper resources and support should be provided, efficiency and cost effectiveness is a result of inclusion, and inclusion can benefit all children. Salamanca argues that these are some core inclusion concepts (Stubbs, pg 12-13, 2002). Inclusive education serves as an exemplar for an inclusive society. In addition, it also benefits students and school personnel. Research shows that in inclusion settings the academic performance of students was found equal or better for the general education students and even for high achievers at times. It promotes the sense of cooperation and the feeling of togetherness in the learner. Furthermore, research show that there has been an improvement in the social skills of low achieving regular students and students with disabilities. It was also observed that inclusion lead to an increase in self-esteem of students related to their abilities and accomplishments. Self-esteem was increased because children with disabilities were taking classes in a regular classroom setting. Studies using quasi-experimental designs showed that the regular students were not ignored in an inclusion classroom setting. Neither was there any problem related to teacher, nor was any undesirable behaviours learnt (Inclusion White Paper, n.p, 2002). Competition leads to an increase in effectiveness. Inclusion promotes competition among children from different disabilities and backgrounds. It increases the level of tolerance and important lessons about diversity are learnt. Furthermore, it is observed that unnecessary duplication of costs associated with segregated arrangements is avoided, thereby inclusion is cost effective (Garuba, pp. 196-197). However, BBC research shows how a Cambridge Professor, John Macbeath has labelled an inclusion classroom setting as a form of abuse. One of the major concerns shown by Cambridge report was that the teachers and the teaching assistants would often go beyond the call of duty to assist children with special education needs. Professor Macbeath further told the journalists how just physically sitting in a classroom is not inclusion. The classroom has to meet the needs of the special child in order to benefit him. Their mental and physical pace is relatively slower than that of the regular children. They might be bewildered by a regular school timetable. For them, rushing from physics to history to French would be equal as being on another planet. This situation can be completely inappropriate for them. According to a Shadow education secretary, the government should rethink its policy of inclusion. It is because it becomes unfair on children with special abilities, rest of the class and teachers. According to the National Autistic Society, the disabled had no choice but to learn in regular classroom settings. The reason being they numbered 90,000 but there were only 7500 special schools. Inclusion means that the teachers have to be trained according to the needs of the children. If the needs of the special child were unmet, then the whole class is affected. This means that the child is unable to meet maximum potential (Macbeath, Galton, & Steward, n.p, 2006). Research shows that special education is dominated by two paradigms. First is the psycho-medical one and the other is the socio-political one. The former talks about the deficits that is located within individual students. The latter however focuses on the structural inequalities at an institutional level. This leads to an issue as to what paradigm is appropriate in case of inclusive education. According to a critique, inclusive education lacks meaning also because of the fact that the child has to make an extra effort outside the regular classroom in case of inclusion. This is because a child with visual impairment will need mobility training outside the regular classroom. This is because the regular environment is neither desirable nor possible (Mitchell, n.p, 2010). Thus, inclusion remains a philosophical notion for some, whereby it is strongly encouraged by others. Using module evidence, outline and assess the argument that the idea of inclusion should be re-thought The idea of inclusion in education has become a very debatable topic, because of the political ideologies and viewpoints, surrounding the issue. While there are many people, who favor inclusion in education, not everyone supports the idea of inclusion. There are some people, who have their reservations, in bringing people with disabilities into the mainstream classroom setting, for a variety of reasons (SEDL, n.p, 2012). The arguments in favor of inclusion are numerous, perhaps because inclusion is such a politically-motivated issue. Psychologists have also identified inclusion to have the advantage of decreasing the labeling, which may occur, because of having disabilities. According to Lewis and Doorlag (2003), when special students are integrated into mainstream classroom levels, they remain in touch with their peers, and labeling is decreased. Moreover, they are not discriminated in any activities. In this way, such children can develop more fully. Stainback (2000) further argues that a student, who is in special education classroom, is being denied the chance and opportunity to learn from and associate with people of their own age. Wood (1993) also maintains that inclusion favors the emotional and social development of a special child in a positive way (Hughes, pp. 195, 2009). Different countries have emphasized upon the need for inclusion, so that the democratic principles can be followed, especially in the major democratic nations of the world, such as United States and United Kingdom. For example, in United Kingdom, the roots of inclusion can be traced back to the 1981 Education Act, which paves way for wider participation of the disabled children into the mainstream arena of education. After all, according to London Southbank University, inclusion is necessary not because of democratic issues, but also because of proper social cohesion in a particular society (London Southbank University, pp. 5, n.d). In fact, even the Salamanca World Statement proclaims that all countries are required to adopt the principles of inclusion into their education systems. UNESCO (1994) states “Inclusion and participation are essential to human dignity and to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights”. However, if the benefits of inclusion are so magnificent, why are there many individuals, who do not support inclusion in education for students with special education needs (SEN)? It is also crucial to understand the idea of disability among the general populace. The Views surrounding disability Many researchers claim that inclusion does not work, because of the mainstream view about disability. While the idea of disability has surrounded individuals from birth, in historic point of view, many of the mainstream media has sought to show disabilities from particular stereotypes, as Haller (2001) states. As Charlton (2000) identifies, many of the charity campaigns for disabled individuals revolve around pity or fear. Hence, in the contemporary world, disability is represented, or actually presented as “a personal tragedy”, instead of accepting disability as a “form of human diversity”. Therefore, even while inclusion exists in the physical sense, the psychological factors surrounding disability remains the same. Children with special needs are still considered ‘the other’ (Strax, Strax, Cooper, n.p, 2012). This idea of ‘other’ stems from the idea that disability occurs because of biology. As Thomas (2000) observes, individuals with disabilities are often recognized as burdens on the society (Stark, Burns, Purdue, Briggs, Turnock, pp. 10, 2011). Researchers ask the question, whether inclusion will function fully, with such views, surrounding disability? Perhaps, one can trace this stance against inclusion from the works of Mary Warnock’s pamphlet, titled “Special Educational Needs: A new Look” in 2005. It is also crucial to understand that while there are many works, surrounding the advantages of inclusion, there are comparatively less works on the arguments against inclusion (Hornby, pp. 52, 2012). Therein, the paper discusses the historical evidence against inclusion. The beginning of the Critique surrounding Inclusion Warnock’s stance remains that the idea of inclusion should broadly be “rethought and redefined to allow children with SEN to be included in the common enterprise of learning, wherever they can learn best”. A more recent work by Terzi (2010) also claims that the special school closure lobby has become dogmatic and does not recognize the idea that for some individuals, special education are perhaps the best, and the only option (Hornby, pp. 52, 2012). Warnock also presents that such policies may have very well forced some parents to integrate their children into mainstream schools, which is not in their best interests, since it results in distress on part of the children with special needs (House of Commons, pp.5, 2005-2006). In her 2005 article, Warnock also establishes that there has been evidence that people, with the most severe disabilities in the mainstream schools have not done well. Before this critique of inclusion by Warnock, Kauffman and Hallahan (1995) in United States had also spoken largely against the theory of inclusion. They validated that full inclusion would be highly damaging to the needs of special children (Hornby, pp.52, 2012). According to Fuchs and Fuchs (1995, pp. 524), “many students with learning disabilities have learning needs substantially different in amount and kind from those of nondisabled children. The full time placement of all students with learning disabilities in total inclusion classrooms will certainly result in the failure of some to obtain an appropriate education or one from which they will benefit (Chow, Blais, Hemingway, n.p, 1999). Many of the subsequent works that followed emphasized upon the idea that full inclusion had not worked, in several places. Some academics also called upon the idea to have “responsible inclusion” or “moderate inclusion”, as Cigman claims. Cigman (2007) validates that there should be inclusion for a majority of the children and NOT all children, decided according to the requirements of the children (Hornby, pp. 53, 2012). Nevertheless, one should also understand that many of the critique surrounding inclusion do not target inclusion fully, but also the ways that this inclusion is implemented. Therefore, it is essential to discuss various viewpoints regarding that. How can Inclusion be rethought? The problem, regarding inclusion is that there are different stakeholders, which are speaking in favor or against this particular topic. This rather complicates the issue. The type of disability that a student has also has much emphasis, upon inclusion. One of the stakeholders include parents, who obviously want the best for their children. However, parents of deaf children prefer separate programs, instead of inclusion. Visual impairments and blindness are often regarded as some parents to merit separate programs. Various parents also express concern about the idea of inclusion for children, with learning disabilities, stating that such children can often lag behind the normal classroom environment, damaging the self-esteem of the individual (Strax, et al, n.p, 2012). The idea for parent’s views is often complicated, because the experience of parents is highly different. It depends upon social class, ethnicity, nationality and gender, according to Valle (2009). Sometimes, parents are powerless, because they simply do not know better. So, how can inclusion be actually rethought? It is worth understanding the opinions of different academics, who have worked on the issue. According to Kauffman, Nelson, Simpson and Mock, special education should have the goal of providing the most effective instruction. However, as empirical evidence validates, this has not been the case, because special instructions in a regular classroom with children with no disabilities has not proved to produce good results (Bakken, Obiakor, Rotatori, pp.9, 2012). Farrell (2010) also substantiates evidence against theory of inclusion in itself, which is highly flawed, because the rationale provided for this type of education is quite flawed. In addition, he concludes that there is not enough empirical evidence to establish the fact that the rationale for inclusive education has necessarily worked. In fact, he also claims that in United Kingdom, inclusive education has been on a decline (Hornby, pp. 53, 2012). Moreover, another disadvantage of inclusion relates to the idea that the pace of the classroom is fast for disabled children to actually catch up (Brain Mass, n.p, n.d). Hornby (pp. 54, 2012) also presents another argument, which seeks to establish that inclusive education should be rethought. While proponents of inclusion believe that, this idea will lead to less stigmization and labeling, this is not the case. It has been proved that the children will continue to be identified by teachers and students, as having special needs, without being ‘formally’ identified as such. Therefore, avoidance of Special education needs does not seek to prevent labeling. However, inclusion can actually prevent students with SEN to get the type of education they require. Hence, the non-labeling rationale for inclusive education actually backfires in this case. Additionally, while the proponents of inclusion suggest that special education tends to have a medical mode of intervention that is not the case. In fact, special education is conducted through proper research and having evidence-based practice, as suggested by Farrell (2010). Therefore, as Hornby claims (pp. 55), inclusion should be carefully rethought, before it is universally accepted and applied, because it has not been developed enough to support and cater to the needs of students with special education needs (SEN). Several people also point towards the idea that that an inclusive philosophy can bring about disastrous consequences. As Mason (1994) identifies within the deaf community, the idea of inclusive education has not seen the impact on children. It is more a politically motivated issue, which is why it has gotten attention. Gerber further points towards this idea that special education is necessary, because it is subversive; hence, it should be valued (Topping, Maloney, pp. 19, 2005). Therefore, it can be ascertained that inclusion in education should be rethought because of the numerous work provided by academics and researchers into this particular field. Additionally, full inclusion will never work properly for children, because they may face disadvantages mentioned above. Another important disadvantage, which merits a full discussion, includes the attitude of teachers towards inclusive education, and the education programmes that have developed. Teachers and Education Policy According to Croll and Moses (2000) and Scruggs (1996), while many proponents of inclusion want to integrate children with SEN into mainstream classrooms, many teachers will not find themselves ‘able’ to conduct such classroom settings. Some teachers are also unwilling to adopt this scenario. This may be perhaps because in several schools in different countries, enough education and training is not provided to teachers, in order for them to handle such children properly. Hence, many teachers will not have the skills and knowledge for including children with SEN in mainstream classrooms. Hence, these children will undoubtedly suffer. Additionally, some education policies in various schools will not have enough financial resources, as well as a support staff to support full inclusion. Therefore, the national policy makers on inclusive education should also consider this factor, because this rules against the favor of full inclusion (Hornby, pp. 56, 2012). Tornillo (1994) who is the President of the Florida Education Association United states that it is alarming at the rate inclusion is being implemented without the resources, training and other supports, which are necessary to integrate students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Moreover, Tornillo also identifies another problem with inclusion, which focuses more on non-disabled children. Because of certain disabled children in classroom, the teachers may be required to direct specific attention to a few students with SEN, which decreases their attention towards the rest of the classroom. Hence, since many of the schools have only one teacher in their classrooms, it may become too much for one teacher to handle. This leads to less academic accountability and achievement. In United States, it has been found in West Virginia by Leo (1994, pp.22) that “78 percent of respondents think disabled children will not benefit from inclusion, while 87 percent said that other students will not benefit either.” Therefore, the argument of the proponents of inclusion fails, when considering this factor. For this reason, inclusion should be rethought. Teachers also stated in the same research in West Virginia that disabled children monopolized time, and often created violent classroom environments (SEDL, n.p, 2012). Moreover, according to Friend and Bursuck (1999),education cannot be provided to certain students in mainstream classrooms, without actually calling attention to the differences that these disabled children have, and thus disrupting the entire class (Berg, pp.15, 2004). Many people also feel that inclusion is an administrative policy, designed to save resources and money, which is spent on alternate programs, and special services, which are designed for students with special needs (Walker, Ovington, n.p, 1998). However, the problem of inclusion does not only stem from teachers. Much of inclusion efforts fail, not only because teachers are not trained in the appropriate way, but also because of ignorance of inclusion among the senior-level administrators. Moreover, there are not enough funds for resources and training, as identified by Sklaroff (pp.7, 1994). One should also recognize that there is vast failure among policy-makers. Students with “special needs” are in a vast umbrella, which has all kinds of children. Some may have mild physical disabilities, while some may have deep learning disabilities. Hence, “special needs has merely become an administrative category” as Alan Dyson from Manchester University claims. The administration does not realize that the children within this ‘special’ category have their own set of wholly different requirements. Additionally, there is such a split between stakeholders that each group is fighting for their own vested interests. Parents have different interests, while broader lobby groups have their own views regarding special education and inclusion. In United Kingdom alone, because of this idea of inclusion, around 93 special schools have closed since 1997. This trend has been widely seen in the Western world, as well. However, this has resulted in inadequate provision (Wilce, n.p, 2006). Towards a conclusion Hence, these numerous arguments support the idea that inclusion should be rethought, because of the numerous advantages that it brings forth. It may result in students having low self-esteem, because of their specified disability, and the way other students behave towards them. Nevertheless, while full inclusion should be rethought, the inclusion system should not be eliminated totally, because it does accrue advantages if properly structured. As long as there is a proper education policy, which reaches the local level, and if teachers are flexible, and there are enough resources, inclusion can work. However, it may not work for all ‘children’ with SEN (Cantrell, pp.13, n.d). If inclusion is to be undertaken, certain confusions must be cleared out, before actually attempting to apply inclusion in general classroom settings. There should be clearer definitions of inclusion, and there should be distinction between full inclusion and partial inclusion. A specialized teacher may perhaps accompany a disabled child, for a certain period of time, or a child can perhaps take one or two classes in regular class environment, and take others in specialized education environment. There should be proper targets identified to inclusion (Bakken et Al, pp. 9, 2012). Moreover, more thought and resources must be provided to mainstream schools, with the necessary support so that they can work properly with inclusive cultures. Hence, there should be multi-agency work done on this particular issue, because the demands of this issue are quite challenging (Barton, pp. 6, 2005). In fact, even Warnock does not completely disregard inclusion. She merely states that it needs to be rethought, so that it can fully benefit the disabled population (Special education needs, n.p, n.d). Indeed, there are many believers who state that the disadvantages of inclusion are much less than the advantages, and thus it should be implemented, such as Jenkinson in 1997 (Forlin, Lian, pp.20, 2008). References Advantages And Disadvantages Of Inclusion In The Classroom. (n.d.). Homework Help from BrainMass. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://brainmass.com/education/other/40 Bakken, J. P., Obiakor, F. E., & Rotatori, A. F. pp.9. 2012. Behavioral Disorders - Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=6VipdmNjPUQC&pg=PA8&dq=idea+ Barton, L. pp.6. 2005. Special Educational Needs: an alternative look. Leeds UK. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/barton/Warnock.pdf Berg, S. pp.15. 2004 The Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion. University of Wisconsin-Stout. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/20 Cantrell, R. pp. 13. N.d. Disadvantages of Inclusion. Recantrel. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from recantrell.iweb.bsu.edu/portfolio/resources Chow, P., Balis, L., & Hemingway, J. n.p. 1999. An Outsider Looking In: Total Inclusion And The Concept Of Equifinality - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library. Questia - The Online Library of Books and Journals. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001259584 Forlin, C., & Lian, J. pp.20. 2008. Reform, Inclusion and Teacher Education: Towards e New Era of Special ... - Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=G0aDVDe4jpgC&pg=PA20&dq=disa Garuba, A. 2003. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR NIGERIA. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 14(2), 196-197. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.aifo.it/english/resources/online/apdrj/apdrj203/inclued-nigeria.pdf Hornby, G. pp.52-56. 2012. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS: A CRITIQUE OF POLICY AND PRACTICE IN NEW ZEALAND. College of Education, University of Canterbury. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from crice.um.edu.my/downloads/hornby.pdf Hughes, L. W. pp. 195. 2009. Current Issues In School Leadership - Larry W. Hughes - Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=cTlQtJJQQIMC&pg=PA195&dq=The+ Inclusion: The Pros and Cons: Concerns About and Arguments Against Inclusion and/or Full Inclusion. n.p. n.d. Welcome to SEDL: Advancing Research, Improving Education. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issu Inclusion White Paper. n.p. 2002 Florida: Florida State University Center for Prevention and Early Intervention Policy. Inclusive Learning in Practice. pp.5 (n.d.). London Southbank University LLU. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www.incurriculum.org.uk/files/128147 Macbeath, J., Galton, M., & Steward, S. n.p. 2006, May 16. School inclusion 'can be abuse' . UK Mitchell, D. n.p. 2010. Education that fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special educational needs. In Inclusive Education. Canterbury: College of Education, University of Canterbury. Rieser, R., & Mason, M. pp. 1. 1992. DISABILITY EQUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM: A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. World of Inclusion. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www.worldofinclusion.com/res/deinclass Special Educational Needs. pp.5-6. 2005-2006. House of Commons. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm Stark, R., Gordon-Burks, D., Purdue, K., Briggs, B., & Turnock, K. pp.10. 2011. Other parents’ perceptions of disability and inclusion in early childhood education: Implications for the teachers’ role in creating inclusive communities . He Kupu. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from www.hekupu.ac.nz/Journal%20files/Iss Strax, M., Strax, C., & Cooper, B. S. n.p. 2012. Kids in the Middle: The Micro Politics of Special Education - Marshall Strax, Carol Strax, Bruce S. Cooper - Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=V4Mr2mbzzTEC&pg=PT193&dq=idea Stubbs, Sue. "Where does Inclusive Education fit in?." Inclusive education: where there are few resources. Oslo: Atlas-Alliance, 2002. 11-12. Print. Topping, K., & Maloney, S. pp.19. (2005). The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Inclusive Education - Keith Topping, Sheelagh Maloney - Google Books. Google Books. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=uarEv4-G3VYC&pg=PA17&dq=Arguments+aga UNESCO - Education pour Tous - Dakar Framework for action. N.p. 2000. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/fr Walker, K., & Ovington, J. n.p. 1998. Inclusion and Its Effects on Students - Walker & Ovington. College of Education and Human Services. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.cehs.wright.edu/~prenick/JournalArchives/Winter-1999/inclusion.html Warnock & SEN . (n.d.). Welcome to Special Educational Needs.co.uk - Expert Legal Advice from Solicitors Specialising in SEN Cases. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/UsefulInformation/SEN-EducationInfo/warnock.html Wilce, H. n.p. 2006. Special-needs education: Does mainstream inclusion work? - Education News - Education - The Independent. The Independent | News | UK and Worldwide News | Newspaper . Retrieved June 9, 2012, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/specialneeds-education-does-mainstream-inclusion-work-470960.html Read More