An analysis on the benefits and challenges of Inclusive Education for Special Needs Students - Essay Example

?An analysis on the benefits and challenges of Inclusive Education for Special Needs While it is easy to make a superficial argument that children who are different, with diverse backgrounds or in this case, physical/mental aptitudes might be 'better served' in a specialised institution, this view has been on the decline for decades in much of the industrialised world. For the interests of education, the best service, and the most funding resides in institutions that generally cater to the general population. With the exception of specialised private academies that may require out-of-pocket expenses for the family, it is highly unlikely that the disabled could be equivalently served by some segregated system in terms of bringing out their full potential. Partly, inclusion has won due to evidence from educational research showing deficiencies from special schools that tend to fall short of reasonable expectations. For some, the advantages of mainstreaming may seem to be largely a social matter. These programs are simply an effort to make the disabled kids ‘feel better’ about themselves; a nod to our ideals of equality in the face of manifest differences that impossibly impede a normal education. But even in cases of severe mental impairment due to developmental abnormalities; administrators must take a hard look from a material perspective. If a school were to be set up in response to a small selection of learning disabilities, is it at all likely that these institutions would receive – on a reliable basis – adequate funding on par with the public school system? Would it be possible to attract the most qualified teachers for such schools? Separate but Equal rarely is. The public school system has a mandate to perform its utmost for the entire student population; not merely those considered more ‘normal’. To ensure that the disabled receive their chance to reach whatever potential they possess; they certainly do not need less resources and attention than mainstream students. To the extent that it is possible; special needs students are included into public schools that they need not be denied the resources, socialisation, and attention that the mainstream public receives. Inclusivity is also important for validating individuals who may face the real, or imagined specter of discriminating prejudices stemming from mis-information concerning their respective conditions, and or limitations. Ultimately, inclusion has won out mainly because it is most just than the alternatives. Arguments in favor for inclusion are moral arguments, arising from a respect for human rights and decency. (Fulcher, 1993) And, as Skidmore puts it: "From this point of view, institutionalized patterns of selection between schools, and of differentiation within them, impoverish and distort the individual development of every student, for they diminish our understanding of human difference. Participation in a diverse learning community is a prerequisite for the growth of each individuals subjectivity in all its richness; the combined development of all is the condition for the full development of each." (Skidmore, 2003, p. 127) A full learning experience that exposes the child to the length and breadth of society, as sampled by their classmates, is in itself an accommodation worthy of pursuit. And this is true not only for the sake of those with the actual disabilities. Special education in England for over two decades has been subject to rapid change, of which programs allowing for inclusive education have played a pivotal role. But barriers still exist that can impede the development of this morally-mandated educational and social movement. Many of the present barriers to effective inclusion tend to be within both local Governmental sectors, as well as certain, reluctant schools. Ultimately, studies show that the best results will be achieved if unwarranted fears concerning inclusion can be addressed, allowing for a voluntary adoption of Inclusive teaching methods, rather than through Government coercion. (Hodkinson, 2010) Pursuant to parliamentary educational standards in place for more than a decade; reasonable provisions must be made to ensure disabled children/persons are not disadvantaged in the school environment. The Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 determines the goals, and legal limitations as they apply to schools towards the realisation of an accessible learning environment for the impaired person. The overarching objective is to prevent the disabled from suffering a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, Standard being, relative to students who are not disabled, short of altering the fundamental architecture of the school building. While the law in practice may not always live up to the lofty goals of its conception, this is the standard that is sought for by this legislation. They key is whether the modifications would be considered 'reasonable', as defined by many pages of legal-speak. (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 28 C) From this starting point, subsequent modifications and addendums seek to create a culture of inclusiveness in public education. It is considered inappropriate to issue blanket denials of admittance to students from the primary sources of education because of intrinsic factors such as race, or disability. A seminal milestone in this pursuit is the Special educational needs 'Green Paper', from the Department of Education. A novel strategy to special educational needs and disability employs far-reaching proposals to address certain frustrations of children and their families, to their benefit and also that of the professionals responsible for teaching them. A comprehensive proposal laid forth in the Green Paper is shaped by the combined expertise of teachers, families, administrators, health professionals and accompanying agencies on national and local levels with an interest in assisting them. SEN is a long-term guiding principle, meant to address issues of inclusion from now up to a benchmark of 2014, with several objectives described below: 1.) Identifications of Special Educational Needs (SEN) children through their early years in and out of school. 2.) By the 2014 Benchmark, a unified assessment process for Educational, and Health agencies. 3.) Open presentation by local authorities of all schools (mainstream or private) and support services for SEN individuals available for their districts. 4.) Support for a personal budget for families of SEN children in terms of Education and Health Care plans by the 2014 Benchmark. 5.) Independent assessment of SEN children's needs. (Department of Education, Green Paper 2011) More support for the concept comes from the Salamanca Statement, adopted at the ‘World Conference on Special Educational Needs: Access and Quality’ and initiative which called upon all the world’s governments to: “Adopt as a matter of law or policy the principles of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise” (UNESCO, 1994, Statement, p. ix). From the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and the Framework of Action, there seems little room for confusion with respect to methods and perspectives on educational inclusion. There may exist some uncertainty, presumably from the phraseology 'special needs education' used in the title of the world conference, some specific clarification in terms of definition would be helpful. 'Special educational needs’ or the SEN was introduced by the Warnock committee in 1978 (in the U.K.) Wherein it was determined when and how special educational provisions needed to be reached in order to accommodate the student; the necessity for said special provisions is a defining attribute of the term 'Special Needs'. Other determining factors for a diagnosis of SEN would include a child that exhibits statistically relevant impairment in learning compared with others of that child's same grade and age level. Or, in the physical dimension, Special Needs represents a particular disability that prevents full utilisation of the facilities at the school in question. (Jha, 2002) But these lofty intentions are not without their challenges, or unintended consequences. Barriers to inclusion from the institution itself can be overcome via legislation; but other obstacles include the necessity that the children’s actual needs are truly being addressed. Issues with inclusion can stem from what might be termed a competency paradox; most people want to be regarded as equals to all other people, but the disabled may have true physical necessities that will not be addressed with the assumption that they are equal. On the one hand, it feels good to claim that all children are given the same chance to succeed in school regardless of disabilities; yet forgetting the need for a wheelchair ramp because ‘normal’ kids don’t need one is a disservice to the one that does. Our egalitarian exuberance must be tempered by a dose of reality; and there is the danger that trying to treat all children the same will set back specialised progress to redress the weaknesses these individuals do indeed suffer. (Dorn, 1996) The answer appears to be creating programs to give attention to the specific disabilities of SEN individuals; but to do so in a public school, rather than some padded-walls institution off in the sticks. Adding further complications are the results of a major international meta-analysis of available literature concerning school integration for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), implies inconclusive results either way, in terms of overall benefits to SEN students. Here, there are constraints in evaluating true effectiveness, because there is no single pathology that makes one ‘handicapped’. Certain conditions may be more, or less understood that others. Our ability to moderate their effects and educate may prove inconsistent. This melding results in a statistical muddle when trying to compare the performance of ‘normal’ students with a dumping ground of disabled individuals with a wide variety of disorders; both physical and mental. (OECD 1994) Must work still needs to be done to modify the consequences of specific disabilities, and to provide tailored educational frameworks by which the greatest number of students can be well served. A 1996 study educational study echoes these findings, reflecting the complications of making performance generalizations concerning sub-populations of students affected by heterogeneous conditions. At one time, there were eleven categories of student for which various provisions were attempted by the British educational infrastructure. At one time, even social deprivation was considered a separate category. (Clough & Corbett, 2000) Warnock abolished this multiplicitous system, yet increased the proportion of children classified as having special needs from two, to twenty percent. (Jha, 2002) Furthermore, there is a distinction between ‘Special Education’ and ‘Inclusion’. Inclusive programs generally include disabled children who are ultimately teachable, and tractable in terms of classroom discipline, but possibly suffering purely physical ailments. This is in contrast with the most likely consequences of ‘Special Education’, in which children who are ‘harder to teach’ may find themselves, either due to mental impairment, or outstanding behavioral issues. In the Special Education environment, Teachers are very likely to simply try harder to teach their students. This is likely to introduce complicating selection bias, rendering it nearly impossible to yield a valid comparison between ‘normal’ students and those differently abled. (Steinberg and Tovey, 1996) But alternative sampling methods can still yield useful information. Studies and meta-analyses that compare the results of inclusion versus non-inclusion do show marginal benefits for those included in the standard school system. (Baker et al. 1995) (Lipsky and Gartner 1996) Furthermore, despite the threat of selection bias, there are still tangible benefits in evidence. In a Large, longitudinal American study of outcomes for ‘mainstreamed’ students, (the US National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students), Outcomes were tracked in terms of post-school progress of 8000 SEN youth. Presently, results indicate that students with physical disabilities that had been mainstreamed for their education were 43 percent more likely to find post-school employment as opposed to counterparts without the benefit of specialized placements. Although selection bias must have existed, compelling evidence of benefits exists. Children with different disabilities were separated in the analysis, yet the analysis was sufficiently precise to show improved outcomes for certain groups; notably those with physical disabilities, but who were otherwise willing, and teachable. (Woronov, 1996) Many researchers maintain that, unless compelling counter-evidence, or a total lack of any possible supporting evidence can be found in favor of inclusion; it remains a social responsibility to nonetheless attempt it where feasible. (Hegarty, 1993)The doctrine of Inclusion is a principled one. Thus, it is important to encourage research with the guiding focus on ways of making inclusion work. It should reward efficient policies and ameliorate problems in such a way that the inevitable obstacles can be identified and overcome. In conclusion, despite some initial rough-patches in terms of categorisation, the available literature has provided justification for the notion that impaired students will have access to better funding, better teaching, and more socialisation opportunities within the public school setting than in special schools. While attention to specific learning or behavioral disorders is vital to these children, in the meantime they are better off in the public system. The barriers described above to success and access to education are physical, for some disorders, but also institutional. The curriculum and pedagogy, should be examined with a critical eye for the extent that they contribute to these barriers. Unless the more subtle obstacles are removed, equal access for all children and a rightful opportunity for success to all remains less likely. The inclusive education movement, in addition to ongoing technological development, and new approaches to education are needed on functional, as well as moral grounds. School systems voluntarily choosing to embrace this diversity will yield the best chance for the future success of these students with special needs. References Baker, E. T., Wang, M. C. and Walberg, H. J. (1994-5). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52 (4), 36-40. Clough, P. & Corbett, J. (2000) Theories of Inclusive Education: A Student’s Guide, Paul Chapman Publishing. Department of Education, Green Paper 2011.Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability - a consultation. General article. © Crown copyright 2011. http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/sen/a0075339/sengreenpaper Disability Discrimination Act, 1995. 1995 c. 50 Part IV Chapter 1 Duties of responsible bodies Section 28A. Legislation.gov.uk. Amendments (Textual) F1S. 28A inserted (E.W.S.) (1.9.2002) by 2001 c. 10, s. 11(1) (with s. 43(13)); S.I. 2002/2217, art. 3, Sch. 1 Pt. 1 Dorn, S., Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, L.S, (1996) 'A historical perspective on special education reform', Theory into Practice, 35, 1, 12-19. Fulcher, G. (1993) Disabling Policies, London: Falmer. 'Schools and contests: a reframing of the effective schools debate?' in R. Slee (ed.) Is there a Desk with my Name on it? The Politics of' Integration, Hegarty, S. (1993) 'Reviewing the literature on integration', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 8(3): 194-200. Hodkinson, Alan 2010. INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION: Inclusive and special education in the English educational system: historical perspectives, recent developments and future challenges British Journal of Special Education. Volume 37, Issue 2, pages 61-67, June 2010. Article first published online: 16 JUL 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2010.00462.x © 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2010 NASEN Jha, Mohan Madan. 2002 Barriers to Access and Success: Is Inclusive Education an Answer? 2nd Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning 29 July 2002 - 2 August 2002. Lipsky, D. and Gartner, A. (1987) 'Capable of achievement and worthy of respect’, Exceptional Children, 54, 1, 69-74. --(1996) 'Inclusion, school restructuring and the remaking of American Society', Harvard Educational Review, 66, 4, 762-96 OECD (1994) The Integration of Disabled Children into Mainstream Education: Ambitions, Theories and Practices, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Skidmore, D. (2003) Inclusion: the dynamic of school development. Maidenhead; Open University Press. Steinberg, A. and Tovey, R. (1996) '''Research says ... ": a cautionary note', in E. Miller and. Tovey (eds) Inclusion and Special Education, HEL Focus Series No. 1, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf Woronov, T. (1996) 'New research supports inclusion for physically disabled: vocational ed prevents dropping out', in E. Miller and R. Tovey (eds) Inclusion and Special Education,HEL Focus Series No. 1, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing. Read More