Does Inclusion Work in Secondary Schools in the US - Essay Example

Inclusion By Your Name Your Professor’s Name Your Class ???? November 2005 The idea behind inclusion is to garner for the disabled child an education that is comparable to that of a child with no disabilities. Before the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the provisions of its amendment, students with disabilities were usually relegated to classrooms that are built especially for him or her. The advent of this act changed things, giving educators an obligation to provide students with disabilities with an equal chance at education. The IDEA and its amendments stipulate that students with disabilities should remain in classrooms with other non-disabled children, and that this guideline should not be breached unless “the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (Renaissance). Though it does not require inclusion, it demands that every attempt be made and every option exhausted before a disabled child can be removed from a regular classroom. The “supplementary aids” mentioned in the extract refers to the after school programs available to the non-disabled child, as well as access to any specialists at the given institution. “Services” refers to such means of support as transportation. This differs from the former way of educating the disabled in that, rather than take the student away from the class and to the support services, those services are brought to the student, who is allowed to stay in the classroom to which he or she would have belonged had there been no disability (WEAC). A variation on the inclusion idea is that of mainstreaming, which states that a disabled student who wants to be placed in the regular classroom ought to earn that right by demonstrating his or her progress in such a way that shows that the placement would in some way enhance and not cripple his education. The author of the article “Special Education Inclusion” denotes a philosophical difference between the proponents of inclusion and mainstreaming. The article states, “Those who support the idea of mainstreaming believe that a child with disabilities first belongs in the special education, [but] those who support inclusion believe that the child always should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom.” This underscores a fundamental difference in world view of several people concerned with the education of children. The proponents of inclusion are its advocates for several reasons. One of the first issues that spring to mind is that of the self-esteem of a person who is placed in a special education classroom. This is even more true of a secondary school student going through adolescence. Such a child often feels inadequate and may become discouraged to the point where learning, which was difficult before, becomes even more difficult, or impossible. Inclusion removes this kind of depression from the equation, and allows the child the freedom and possibly even the desire to learn. Inclusion advocates interaction with students who have reached the level to which the disabled student is aspiring. Older students are very much influenced by peers. This allows for the challenging of that student, as he or she will he exposed to tasks that require a higher level of processing. Higher standards are to be required of any student who hopes to move from one level to another, whether he or she be disabled or not. Therefore, the exposure of these students to the higher demands of the regular class should urge him or her to reach a higher level in education. Inclusion also promotes interaction between the regular student and the disabled student. It allows them to learn acceptance and tolerance and builds solidarity among the student population as a whole. This is especially important at the secondary school level where students are about to enter society. The disabled child will feel less ostracized by society as he or she takes part in a program that is built not specifically to placate his needs, but for the common needs of all children. In addition, the regular student will learn to adjust his or her behaviors to fit the capabilities of the disabled student. In this way, both the disabled and non-disabled students benefit. According to the National Association of School Boards of Education, the student who is often pulled out of class and placed in a special education program ends up having a fragmented education and causes them to feel “that they neither belong in the general education classroom nor the special education classroom” (qtd. in “Inclusion”). When these students are educated in the regular classroom, they have a better chance of learning because they are not faced with catching up with the information they missed when taken from the class to receive the special services. In this way it is effective to have all the services a child needs brought to him or her, rather than remove him from the class. Also quoted in the article 1992 reports of the National Association of School Boards of Education is the fact that 43% of all special education students never graduate from high school. This high percentage clearly indicates that the benefits of special education are limited, since the help to be had from the special classroom is unable to provide the desired effect: education of all students. Therefore, according to this evidence, inclusion ought to be considered as an alternate that would likely produce better results. Another argument in favor of inclusion is that “as regular and special education faculty work cooperatively together in integrated settings, their coordinated work tends to raise their own expectations for their students with disabilities” (“Inclusion”). With increased expectations come a more favorable environment for the disabled child and a higher level of mutual respect by and for teacher and student. The arguments that exist against inclusion are also cogent, and many people exist who are advocates of the removal of students with disabilities from special education classes. One such argument is that placing a disabled student in a fast-paced classroom disregards the reason for which the student was diagnosed with a disability. The student with special needs, whether at the primary or secondary level, cannot have his needs met satisfactorily in a setting where no provisions are made for them. Other students’ needs, which would be the needs of the majority, would obscure that of the disabled student and cause him or her to stagnate rather than progress in education. Another argument against inclusion is that it disrupts the learning patterns of the regular student, as he or she is subject to frequent interruptions when the teacher has to pause or adjust the lesson to fit the needs of the disabled student. Often, at the secondary school level, the resources necessary to include the disable student are not present, as they belong to a much lower level of education. This makes it harder for the teacher, who now has to prepare alternate lessons or has to teach topics twice or in vastly different ways at one time. It may also happen that the disability with which the child is afflicted causes him or her to become violent. At the secondary school level, many students have grown to become as physically powerful as adults. It is documented that working with disabled students in the regular classroom has caused “violent classroom environments" (Sklaroff, p. 7). More often than not, teachers in the regular classroom setting are not specialists trained in the diversities and intricacies of special education. They are unable to control volatile situations that can occur, and this can be to the detriment of the educator, the disabled student, and the other students in the class. Often students with disabilities who are placed in regular programs feel a sense of isolation, especially if and when no one feels comfortable being around him or her. It might be that students do not know how to approach and be kind to the disabled student, or they just might not desire to interact. For whatever reason, when that occurs, it might a blow to the self esteem or the psyche of the student. Repeated occurrences of this might adversely affect the student for life, and cause him or her to carry negative preconceived notions into all subsequent social settings. Special education students often have needs that are best met in facilities that are designed to accommodate them. These needs require attention; they are not negligible, as they often are one and the same with the barriers to the students’ learning abilities. Attention to them, therefore, should not be compromised on any level. However, this is sure to occur in the regular classroom setting, especially at the secondary level, where the focus is on student of a higher learning capacity. Even the needs of the regular students get neglected at times, but if that should happen to a student who is already at a disadvantage, then hope for his or her recovery recedes that much more. Some of the points quoted as advantages of inclusion above may actually prove to be disadvantages. One such is the idea that the disabled student who is educated in the regular classroom will be challenged to a higher level of excellence. The opposite might be true, as the student could become frustrated when required to perform tasks that are significantly more difficult than those with which he or she can cope. It is often necessary to move at a slower pace with the disabled students in order that they fully grasp the material being taught. It may also be necessary for the teacher to accept that a disabled student might never be able to grasp a certain concept. Again, educators who are specially trained to deal with these students would have much better results in these difficult situations. Finally, some parents might still be protective of their high-schooler, and be opposed to the idea of having their disabled child placed in a facility with regular students. Their fears about the situation may be varied, but they certainly can be understood. A rigid inclusion scheme would disregard the wishes of parents who know the capabilities of their child/children and feel it necessary that he or she be given the special attention that special education programs provide. The inclusion program seeks to level the playing field, so to speak, for those who attend school, whether they be disabled or without disability. The benefits would include the development of such important social skills as tolerance on the part of the non-disabled student, and it would improve the self-image of the disabled child. It would also offer the opportunity for the disabled student to be challenged in areas of academics and intellect, plus that of sports and other extra-curricular activities, as he or she would become exposed to abilities and skills that are of a higher level than his or her own. On the other hand, disabled students might meet challenges going into the regular classrooms. They might be confronted with situations that their bodies or psyches might not be able to handle. They may become so frustrated that the situation might cause bodily or mental harm to them, their peers, and/or their teachers. As the IDEA act stipulates, all avenues must be exhausted before a student is placed into a disability program. This seems reasonable, as it would mean that the persons involved in the decision has thoroughly considered all the options and tried everything to come up with the best solution for the child. As each child is an individual, the best solution might (and probably does) vary from one child to another. Since the IDEA act allows for this, it may be considered not as a restriction for these secondary school students, but a liberation. Works Cited Group, The Renaissance. “Legal Requirements.” Inclusion. 14 Oct. 1999. 20 Nov. 2005. < http://www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/legal/index.html> Special Education Inclusion. WEAC. 5 Nov. 2001. 20 Nov. 2005. Inclusion: the pros and cons. Executive Summary. Issues…about change. (1995) 4(3). http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues43.html Sklaroff, S. (1994). A.F.T. urges halt to 'full inclusion' movement. Education Week, p. 7. Read More

The article states, “Those who support the idea of mainstreaming believe that a child with disabilities first belongs in the special education, [but] those who support inclusion believe that the child always should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom.” This underscores a fundamental difference in world view of several people concerned with the education of children. The proponents of inclusion are its advocates for several reasons.

One of the first issues that spring to mind is that of the self-esteem of a person who is placed in a special education classroom. This is even more true of a secondary school student going through adolescence. Such a child often feels inadequate and may become discouraged to the point where learning, which was difficult before, becomes even more difficult, or impossible. Inclusion removes this kind of depression from the equation, and allows the child the freedom and possibly even the desire to learn.

Inclusion advocates interaction with students who have reached the level to which the disabled student is aspiring. Older students are very much influenced by peers. This allows for the challenging of that student, as he or she will he exposed to tasks that require a higher level of processing. Higher standards are to be required of any student who hopes to move from one level to another, whether he or she be disabled or not. Therefore, the exposure of these students to the higher demands of the regular class should urge him or her to reach a higher level in education.

Inclusion also promotes interaction between the regular student and the disabled student. It allows them to learn acceptance and tolerance and builds solidarity among the student population as a whole. This is especially important at the secondary school level where students are about to enter society. The disabled child will feel less ostracized by society as he or she takes part in a program that is built not specifically to placate his needs, but for the common needs of all children. In addition, the regular student will learn to adjust his or her behaviors to fit the capabilities of the disabled student.

In this way, both the disabled and non-disabled students benefit. According to the National Association of School Boards of Education, the student who is often pulled out of class and placed in a special education program ends up having a fragmented education and causes them to feel “that they neither belong in the general education classroom nor the special education classroom” (qtd. in “Inclusion”). When these students are educated in the regular classroom, they have a better chance of learning because they are not faced with catching up with the information they missed when taken from the class to receive the special services.

In this way it is effective to have all the services a child needs brought to him or her, rather than remove him from the class. Also quoted in the article 1992 reports of the National Association of School Boards of Education is the fact that 43% of all special education students never graduate from high school. This high percentage clearly indicates that the benefits of special education are limited, since the help to be had from the special classroom is unable to provide the desired effect: education of all students.

Therefore, according to this evidence, inclusion ought to be considered as an alternate that would likely produce better results. Another argument in favor of inclusion is that “as regular and special education faculty work cooperatively together in integrated settings, their coordinated work tends to raise their own expectations for their students with disabilities” (“Inclusion”). With increased expectations come a more favorable environment for the disabled child and a higher level of mutual respect by and for teacher and student.

The arguments that exist against inclusion are also cogent, and many people exist who are advocates of the removal of students with disabilities from special education classes.

Read More