Is Inclusion a Positive Movement - Essay Example

Is Inclusion a Positive Movement? Copyright Parents have always tried to do that which will provide the best to their children in terms of education and training. However, this has meant that having children educated with minority children, those from different racial and ethnic backgrounds or with children who have a disability has been frowned upon. Unfortunately, those who have been gifted with the best of everything often feel repulsed at trying to share the burdens of a society which has to look after the less fortunate and to help create a fairer society in which tolerance and acceptance of disability is likely to make such a society more worthwhile. Thus, inclusive education has met with resistance from all quarters and just like those parents who felt that their children should not be educated with blacks, many parents and teachers today still have a muted sense of distaste for inclusion. However, it has to be understood that every child that is born in a society is owed something and has to live in the real world. Thus, inclusion is a better approach than segregation and the society will do far better if it were to try to accept the best inclusive practices and to try to embed knowledge into the environment for the continuous progress of all its members. This brief essay presents a discussion about inclusion in education. Declaration I certify that, except where cited in the text, this work is the result of research carried out by the author of this study. The main content of the study which has been presented contains work that has not previously been reported anywhere. _____________________________________________ Name and Signature of Author September 2008 This write - up is presented in fulfilment for the requirements related to an essay on Inclusion in Education. Biographical Sketch Acknowledgements Contents Introduction 1 What is being said about Inclusion? 3 Conclusion 10 Bibliography/ References 12 (This page intentionally blank) Introduction Inclusion in education refers to the notion that students from a wide range of backgrounds and abilities should study in the same regular school with their normal peers and that schools should change the way in which they work to cater for the requirements of all students (Loreman, Pp. 15). It should be noted that inclusion has been encouraged in many countries from around the world as a positive means for encouraging the development of all students and also for encouraging tolerance (Hughes, Pp. 119). However, despite the fact that inclusion has been considered in a positive manner by many, critics of the policy of inclusion do exist and it has been said that the strain that is being introduced in schools as a result of inclusion is a time bomb which can explode unless inclusion policies are properly resourced (Allan, 2008, Pp. 1 -9). Although the concept of inclusion by itself has received much support, it is the financial and emotional cost for teachers who have to try so very hard to do more to encourage the special child in a normal classroom that appears to be a problem. However, it has to be noted that every child does have a right to be educated by the society and this means that having special schools that are operating in parallel with the normal schools is also unlikely to be a cheap option. Inclusive education does not need to be fully inclusive and several different models have been proposed in regard to how inclusion may be achieved in practice (Rafferty, Pp. 173 – 175). In the full inclusion model, children are full participants in a general education program that is for everyone. The cluster model for inclusion refers to the embedding of a small group of children with disabilities into a group of normal children and reverse inclusion refers to the situation in which a small group of normal children is provided learning opportunities with a group of children who are in need of specialised education. Social inclusion refers to the situation in which normal children and those with disabilities attend separate classes but they are provided opportunities for social interaction within a school. However, it has to be understood that variations in organisational structures and service delivery models that are used for inclusion in various schools do make it difficult to precisely classify inclusion in reality. Also, inclusion is possible at all levels, ranging from pre-school to higher education and perhaps it is less challenging for teachers to adequately deal with inclusion in the pre-school when children are more likely to develop positive attitudes for later life. From what has been mentioned previously, it is clear that a number of issues about inclusion need to be carefully considered before deciding if inclusion can be considered a positive movement, even though a substantial body of opinion does exist to indicate that inclusion has received a favourable response. This essay presents a discussion about whether inclusion should be considered as being a positive movement and an attempt is made to try to discuss evidence, attitudes and perspectives about inclusion. What is being said about Inclusion? Legislation mandating inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities into regular classrooms now exists in several countries (Jacobson, Chapter 7). The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 in the United States of America has clear implications for supporting increased participation of children with disabilities within the general curriculum (Carter, Pp. 174). One of the more important motivator for enacting such legislation was to try to prevent social rejection or neglect of such children by their peers. However, studies have indicated that children with intellectual disabilities were rejected more when they were integrated into regular classrooms and normal children often regarded children with intellectual disabilities as having other disabilities. However, some positive effects have been observed on normal children as a result of having been in contact with children with intellectual disabilities and it is likely that the manner in which teachers explain children with intellectual disabilities to others can make a difference. Thus, it is likely that normal children will be more likely to accept children with intellectual disabilities as a result of being exposed to such children, but this does not mean that they will go out of their way to try to become their friends or to interact with them. In fact studies have indicated that it is possible that the stereotypes that have existed about children with intellectual disabilities may have been strengthened as a result of inclusion and children will often stigmatise any child with a special class placement. However, inclusion does provide an opportunity for all children to adjust to what real life is likely to offer and for teachers to try and change attitudes. Inclusive education requires that the curriculum be redesigned and a comprehensive transformation of education is required (Mooij, Pp. 97). Many teachers who have not had any experience of teaching special children often indicate that they cannot teach such children and their confidence is often low (Jacobson, Chapter 7). However, as the inclusion experience has progressed, objections to inclusion are now far more muted. Often, additional funding for children with special needs is not available and only those with severe learning disabilities, behavioural disabilities or handicaps may qualify for additional assistance within the regular school system if such children meet the specified criteria which have been established. Perhaps the purpose of inclusive education is to prepare the special child for real life in which it can only be expected that they may receive some special consideration if normal people have been made aware of their needs and are more likely to be inclined to assist because they have been educated better to care. A certain consensus does exist amongst researchers that inclusive education can provide for the needs of all children in the broadest sense (Lindsay, Pp. 18 – 19). However, it has also been suggested that inclusive education does not mean that a choice has to be made between mainstream and a special school. Assessment and testing of pupils with special needs can be a problem and social acceptance for those with even moderate learning difficulties has also been mentioned as being a problem (Fredrickson, Pp. 407 – 408). Modifications and scaffolding for children with disabilities are likely to be required in mainstream inclusive schools and teachers have made comments about trying to match the personal characteristics of individual students with the inclusion program (Weiner, Chapter 5). Leadership in schools can make a difference to the success of inclusion efforts and parents of children with disabilities have been known to try to select the best school for their wards. Parental involvement is said to be necessary for successful inclusion in schools (Kovacs, Pp. 57). However, it will appear that the published material from North America is more supportive of inclusion as compared to the European literature, especially that from the United Kingdom. Some of the risks and requirements associated with inclusion that have been mentioned in literature include the following (Kovacs, Chapter 5) and (Carter, Pp. 178 – 180): Teachers must be trained to better manage those with special needs in a general classroom. A risk exists that students with disability may disrupt a classroom. Students with disability may require more teacher attention and time. Teasing of disabled students by others may become difficult to control. Inclusion can result in either the students with disability falling behind academically or the normal students being held back. Courts in the United States of America have ruled that inclusion should provide the disabled students with some benefits apart from socialization and it is said that if inclusion is to work then it must be defined from the beginning (Crumbacher, Chapter 2). Also, children with more severe disabilities are likely to be unfavourably treated in inclusive schools because their attention needs are likely to be far greater. This means that children should be assessed to decide if they can be fitted into inclusive education. Surprisingly, studies indicate that it is the pre-service teachers with little or no experience of inclusive classrooms who felt more optimistic about inclusion as compared to the in-service teachers who had been teaching in inclusive systems, even though the in-service teachers were also not negative about inclusion. It has been noticed that inclusive policies are best accepted by those who have to work with child groups if a team is created so that work is divided in a manner that division of labour and responsibility does not tax individuals. However, having intervention specialists does not necessarily provide adequate support and a need exists for universities to change their teacher education programs to emphasise inclusive education. Secondary r high school education has been identified as being the most difficult for inclusive education because it is during these years that children are the most confused and the most rebellious as they grow into adulthood. Some teachers believed that perhaps the more difficult subjects, such as science and mathematics, should not be taught in great depth to the disabled children (Crumbacher, Chapter 2). However, these teachers forget that inclusion is about offering every kid a chance to grow up and to understand each other, while preparing to live in the world of reality. Many disabled scientists have achieved excellence in their work and denying a child the knowledge that may be of interest to them and to act as a decision maker about what a person should or should not learn is wrong. Children are often academic disasters in their younger years but they can grow up and change rapidly to excel. A child should be able to study whatever they have an interest in, even if they may be a bit slower in getting a grip on a subject. Perhaps one of the reasons why teachers feel pressured about inclusion is because under the terms of legislative instruments related to education, such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are responsible for measuring the academic performance of pupils with disability and ensuring that these meet fairly ambitious targets if a school is not to be offered a reduced level of public funding (Koenig, “Executive Summary”). Inclusive schools cannot be created merely by announcing that they are inclusive (Villa, Chapter 4). It is necessary that a vision for inclusive education is created and communicated to the community. Also, it is important that resources for inclusive education, including people, are collected and organised as teams and that psychologists and other support professionals are engaged. Proper plans have to be prepared and concerns evaluated for proper action. Although the inclusion movement has often been considered as being a movement that is distinct from curriculum or instructional reform, perhaps the previously mentioned reform processes should be considered as being holistic. It is possible for teachers to try to assist a child by helping them to construct knowledge by relating to concepts without remediation and it has to be understood that inclusion creates the future society in which children who have grown up will live. Thus, it should be understood that racial bigots had previously objected to racial and cultural inclusion, but the fact is that a multicultural society has to be able to create members who have grown up together and thus are understanding and tolerant of everyone. If teachers can develop a culturally relevant pedagogy, then it is also likely that they can develop a pedagogy that can help inclusion for the child with disability (Villa, Chapter 7). It has been suggested in literature that inclusion is political and perhaps it is (Allan, Chapter 11) but the question that everyone should be asking is whether a better future can be created by having an inclusive system of education even if this means that some minor give and take has to be made on all sides? Perhaps everyone will agree that inclusion is a better hope for creating a society in which those who have been born with disabilities as children of a lesser god can be provided with a more practical experience and training for coping with real life. At the same time, those who are more normal can learn to live better in a more inclusive society. Perhaps the resistance to inclusion is all a part of various having to come to terms with the change in attitudes and thinking that has to go with inclusion. However, perhaps it should be possible to come up with a solution about the level of disability that can be adequately handled in an inclusive system. Perhaps an inclusive system can deal with severe physical handicaps, but perhaps it is likely to be difficult to deal with severe mental disability in an inclusive system. However, every child should have something from a society and it is only fair that sincere efforts be made to try to create a society that is good and looks after its disabled. Thus, although something has to be considered for the severely mentally handicapped, inclusion is a tolerant system that should cater for a variety of persons that exist in any community. Inclusion can be an important vehicle for fostering citizenship and democracy, but it is important to try to fit inclusion within the local context (Allan, Chapter 14). It is also important that efforts that are made for implementing an inclusive education system are constantly re-examined so that any lessons that have been learnt from practice can be adequately translated into that which can make a practical improvement. It has to be understood that a school is a place where individuals are assisted with learning and that the real education does not take place as a result of attending a school or because a teacher presented a lecture in a certain way. Real learning and education takes place at home and it is not just teachers who are responsible for educating children, but also their parents and they themselves who have to assume responsibility. Thus, perhaps inclusive education should also mean that attempts are made to try to extend learning from school into the home and the environment. Unfortunately, the thinking that a teacher can somehow make a very big difference to the interests of an individual who is inclined to learn or otherwise is flawed and perhaps this was valid in a day and age in which even printed books were in short supply. Knowledge and learning which is appropriate has to somehow be embedded in an environment and we see this as being the case in the developing world, while the underdeveloped world remains addicted to trash soap operas on their television which are worth nothing to the nation or its children but only provide money to the producers and writers of such trash. Conclusion A disabled child or the child who migrated from a foreign culture has to live in the real world into which they have found themselves. It is impossible for anyone to somehow magically remove the disability that has been presented to a child by its creator as a lifelong handicap, but it is only fair that efforts be made to try to equip a child with skills to survive in the real world and also to try to make a society far more tolerant and understanding of its needs. Inclusion is the only way available that can be useful, even though it is full of risks and objections. Thus, it must be said that inclusion is a positive movement, but it is important to carefully study how inclusion is implemented in practice and to try to do that is best and fair for all the children. (This page intentionally blank) Bibliography/ References 1. Ainscow, M. Teachers attitudes and beliefs towards the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general primary education classrooms in Zambia. Manchester: University of Manchester, 2001. 2. Allan, Julie. Inclusion, Participation and Democracy: What is the Purpose? Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 3. Allan, Julie. Rethinking Inclusive Education: Philosophers of Difference in Practice. Springer, 2008. 4. Bagley, C. & Jha, M. M. International perspectives on educational diversity and inclusion: studies from America, Europe and India. London: Routledge, 2007. 5. Baron, S., Wilson, A., & Economic and Social Research Council (Great Britain). The learning society and people with learning difficulties. Bristol: Policy Press, 2001. 6. Barry, Monica (Editor). Youth Policy and Social Inclusion: Critical Debates with Young People. Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2005. 7. Bird, G. & Down syndrome Education. Education for individuals with Down syndrome: an overview. Southsea: Down Syndrome Educational Trust, 2000. 8. Breakey, C. & Net Library, I. Access and inclusion for children with autistic spectrum disorders [electronic resource]: let me in. London; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2001. 9. British Educational Leadership and Management Association. Managing special and inclusive education. Los Angeles; London: SAGE, 2007. 10. Carter, Erik W. Including High School Students With Severe Disabilities in General Education Classes: Perspectives of General and Special Educators, Paraprofessionals, and Administrators. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2006, Vol. 31, No. 2, 174–185. September 7, 2008. http://www.atypon-link.com/TASH/doi/pdfplus/10.5555/rpsd.31.2.174 11. Chapman, M., Skitteral, J., & Disability Equality in Education. Inclusion in early years. Disability Equality in Education course book. London: Disability Equality in Education, 2002. 12. Cline, T. Special education needs, inclusion and diversity: a textbook .Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002. 13. Clough, P. Inclusion in the early years: critical analyses and enabling narratives London: SAGE Publications, 2006. 14. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom. From elitism to inclusion: good practice in widening access to higher education: statistical overview. London: CVCP, 2000. 15. Cowdery, G. E. The exceptional child: inclusion in early childhood education, 5th Edition. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning, 2005. 16. Crumbacher, Christine Ann. Core Content Teachers’ Preparedness and Perception of Inclusive Education in Central Ohio Schools. Wright State University, 2007. September 7, 2008. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/Crumbacher%20Christine%20Ann.pdf?acc_num=wright1183149507 17. Ebrary, I. Spaced out: policy, difference and the challenge of inclusive education Dordrecht; London: Kluwer, 2003. 18. Enabling Education Network. Family action for inclusion in education Manchester: Enabling Education Network (EENET), 2002. 19. Fredrickson, Norah L and Furnham, Adrian F. Peer-assessed behavioural characteristics and sociometric rejection: Differences between pupils who have moderate learning difficulties and their mainstream peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2004), 74, 391–410. September 8, 2008. www.bps.org.uk 20. Florian, L. & Rouse, M. Achievement and inclusion in schools London: Routledge, 2007. 21. Hughes, Marie Tejero. EXPERIENCES OF KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS IMPLEMENTING INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS. International Journal of Special Education, Volume 22, No. 2, 2007. September 7, 2008. http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/13HughesValleRiestra.doc 22. Jacobson, John W et al. Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Springer. 23. Kelly, N. Moderate learning difficulties and the future of inclusion London; New York: Routledge-Falmer, 2005. 24. Koenig, Judith Anderson et al. Keeping Score for All: The Effects of Inclusion and Accommodation Policies on Large-Scale Educational Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, 2004. September 7, 2008. http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/execsumm.cgi?record_id=11029 25. Kovacs, Denise. The Inclusion Experience of Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in General Education Classrooms. Miami University, 2006. September 7, 2008. http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi/Kovacs%20Denise.pdf?acc_num=miami1161651267 26. Lindsay, Geoff. Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology (2007), 77, 1–24. September 7, 2008. www.bpsjournals.co.uk 27. Loreman, Tim et al. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’ SENTIMENTS, ATTITUDES, AND CONCERNS ABOUT INCLUSIVE EDUCATION. International Journal of Special Education, Volume 22, No. 2, 2007. September 7, 2008. http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/16%20Loremanetal.doc 28. Loxley, A. Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion Phildelphia, Pa.: Open University, 2001. 29. Merrill, B. & Net Library, I. The changing face of further education: lifelong learning, inclusion and community values in further education London: Routledge-Falmer, 2003. 30. Michel, D. & National Association for Able Children in Education. Gifted & talented learners: creating a policy for inclusion London: David Fulton in association with the National Association for Able Children in Education, 2002. 31. Millward, A. Schools and special needs: issues of innovation and inclusion London: Paul Chapman, 2000. 32. Mooij, Ton and Smeets, Ed. Design, Development and Implementation of Inclusive Education. European Educational Research Journal, Volume 5, Number 2, 2006. September 8, 2008. http://www.wwwords.co.uk/eerj/content/pdfs/5/issue5_2.asp 33. Morehouse, P. The early childhood curriculum: inquiry learning through integration New York; London: McGraw-Hill, 2008. 34. Open University. Special educational provision in the context of inclusion: policy and practice in schools London: David Fulton in association with the Open University. 2001. 35. Peasley, H. & Disability Equality in Education. Inclusion in schools, Disability Equality in Education course book. London: Disability Equality in Education, 2002. 36. Prior, A., Potter, D., & National Autistic Society. Inclusion and autism: is it working? 1.000 examples of inclusion in education and adult life from The National Autistic Societys members. National Autistic Society, 2000. 37. Rafferty, Yvonne and Griffin, Kenneth W. Benefits and Risks of Reverse Inclusion for Preschoolers with and without Disabilities: Perspectives of Parents and Providers. Journal of Early Intervention, 2005, Volume 27, No. 3, Pp. 173 – 192. September 7, 2003. http://jei.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/3/173 38. Riddick, B. & Sterling, C. M. Dyslexia and inclusion: assessment and support in higher education London: Whurr, 2002. 39. Rose, Richard et al. ESTONIAN VOCATIONAL TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS. International Journal of Special Education, Volume 22, No. 3, 2007. Retrieved: September 7, 2008. From: http://www.internationalsped.com/documents/12RoseEstonian.doc 40. Schwartz, I. S. The exceptional child: inclusion in early childhood education, 4th Edition. Albany, NY: Delmar, 2001. 41. Seelman, K. D., Bury, M., & Net Library, I. Handbook of disability studies Thousand Oaks; London: SAGE, 2001. 42. Smehaugen, A. & Stockholms Universitet. Inclusion & exclusion in culture, learning and education: a European perspective: the cases of Spain and Norway Stockholm: Institute of International Education, Stockholm University, 2001. 43. Smith, M. A practical guide to pre-school inclusion London: Paul Chapman, 2006. 44. Starkey, H. & ebrary, I. Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion in education Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2005. 45. Turnbull, H. R. & Wehmeyer, M. L. Exceptional lives: special education in todays schools, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall, 2007. 46. UNESCO. & World Education Forum. Inclusion in education: the participation of disabled learners. Paris: UNESCO, 2001. 47. University of Cambridge. Faculty of Education. Primary Review. Children in primary education [electronic resource]: demography, culture, diversity and inclusion. Cambridge: Primary Review, 2007. 48. University of Kent at Canterbury. Inclusion in further education: the experiences of young people designated students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities, 1997-2000. Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury, 2002. 49. University of Kent. Schools of thought: understanding inclusion and exclusion in education in Finland and South Africa. Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury, 2005. 50. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Effectiveness of conjoint behavioral consultation as a service delivery model for supporting the inclusion of special needs children with emotional and behavioral challenges in the general education classroom. Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2004. 51. University of Westminster. European Access Network. & Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom. From elitism to inclusion: good practice in widening access to higher education, statistical overview. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors & Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, 2000. 52. Vaughan, M. Inclusive education: readings and reflections Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2004. 53. Villa, Richard A and Thousand, Jacqueline S. Creating an Inclusive School, 2nd Edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia USA. 54. Weiner, Ricia. Teacher and Student Perspectives on the Inclusion and Mainstreaming of Children with Moderate and Severe Cognitive Disabilities. University of Maryland, 2007. September 7, 2008. http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/7281/1/umi-umd-4682.pdf 55. West, L. L. & Taymans, J. M. Successful inclusion: practical strategies for a shared responsibility, 2nd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000. Read More