Partially Isolating the Educable Mentally Retarded - Essay Example

Running Head: Mental Retardation Partially Isolating the Educable Mentally Retarded: Forms, Impacts, and Implications on Future Research Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Introduction Studies on Mild Mental Retardation (MMR) have decreased in the recent decades. At present, as an area of study, little is known about the kind of educational training mildly mentally retarded students receive in the domains of curriculum and instruction. As scholarly attention in learners with MMR has dwindled, the area is left with modest information regarding the type of curricular strategies and instructional contexts are exercised for students with MMR. Therefore, this investigation of students with MMR is relevant because disagreements occur among practitioners and in studies, as to the form of educational curriculum students with MMR receive. Some argue that as an outcome of the movement for inclusive education, students with MMR receive a curriculum for general education and suspect its effectiveness and appropriateness. Moreover, this kind of study is important to educational research and classroom practice due to the fact that in spite of the more rigorous definition of the classification of MMR since its alteration in 1973, the educational programming and curriculum have been unsuccessful in adapting themselves to the needs of the new Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) population. The modification in 1973 reduced the “high end of the IQ range from 80 to 68 or 70, depending on the intelligence test, for the definition of the educable mental retardation and also added the necessity of a significant discrepancy in two areas of adaptive functioning” (Bouck, 2004, 367). One of the earliest formal definitions of mental retardation highlighted the idea that, “a person’s incomplete mental development contributed to a situation where the individual was, “incapable of adapting himself to the normal environment of his fellows” (Tredgold, 1937, p.4). In 1905, the Binet and Simon mental test was introduced. This test allowed for differentiation of severities of mental retardation from mild to severe. In the past identification and testing was done primarily by doctors and psychologists (Patton, Polloway & Smith, 2000). Nevertheless, the public opinions about educating the mentally handicapped have gone through many stages through the centuries. In the late 1700’s people were very optimistic about the trainability of these students. However, the late 1800’s brought a climate of pessimism and was followed by backlash into the early 20th century (Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000). Likewise, it has been documented that “in the United States, special classes for students with mental retardation can be traced back to 1897” (Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000). And by the late 1960’s a hierarchical system of evaluation came about. It consisted of “(a) school failure; (b) teacher nomination focused on motor, attention, and emotional behaviors; and (c) an intelligence test score below the cutoff of 85” (Patton, Polloway & Smith, 2000). It was not until the mid-1970 that special education became a federal mandate and a system to guarantee an appropriate education was put into place (Patton, Polloway & Smith, 2000). Until rather recent times the prevailing policy on how to educate students with MMR was complete segregation. These students were sometimes even not allowed at lunch or on the playground with other students. They were sometimes even sent to special schools. Once placed in these special programs the students had no means to return to regular education classrooms. The prevailing policy here was that students with MMR should be placed with students with similar learning needs and that is the end of the story. They believe pull-out education was best because it enhanced achievement and because students with MMR were rejected and isolated when place in a regular education setting (Dunn, 1968). The objective of this study is to answer the following research questions: 1) After taking into consideration the methods of the past, what forms of isolationism are still in use today? How early does this isolation start? 2) Are there any noticeable scholastic benefits of isolating EMR students? Literature Review This section will review existing scholarship on the issue of partially isolating the Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) in terms of its forms and benefits on the learner and on scholastic wellbeing. The first section will discuss the means of identifying EMR/MMR at present, and then the current situation of partial isolation of EMR/MMR will be explained on the point of view of various scholars, and lastly studies on the outcome of partial isolation will be evaluated. In the United States, the forms of educational trainings provided to learners with cognitive deficiencies are stated by legislation; in Australia and the United Kingdom the regulation is less rigid for this population, even though a general education approach dominates several practices. In other places, services for mentally retarded students are governed merely by local legislation or are not yet institutionalized practice. The most controversial issue in educational inclusion during the past two decades was where, and not how, learners with mental disabilities must be taught, the schools they should attend, and not the curriculum and instruction they should be provided of (Gersten, Schiller, & Vaughn, 2000). Supporters of full inclusion claim that all learners, despite of the nature of their mental disabilities, should attend schools of nondisabled learners. On the other hand, those resisting full inclusion claim that a rich array of other placements ranging from “regular classrooms to resource classes, special self-contained classes, and special day or residential schools and hospitals” (Crockett & Kaufmann, 1999, 1) is essential if every learner with a mental disability is to receive effective and appropriate educational training. The theory behind full inclusion is that ordinary classrooms in schools are consistently and for all learners, or the only place where in they can receive effective and appropriate education, or the least restraining other type of placement. On the contrary, the theory behind a complete array of other types of placements or partial inclusion is that the least restraining context for learning will differ from learner to learner and usually from time to time for a special learner as well (Kameenui, Chard, & Lloyd, 1997). However, the implementation of full or partial inclusion depends upon the identification of mental retardation, particularly its degree. Identifying EMR/MMR Today It was agreed among medical practitioners today that the identification of mental retardation essentially entailed recording a number of various and independent features of a case. Hence, at least, it was necessary that the level of retardation, and also the critical disorder, be categorized. Apparently, it would be absolutely inadequate if it were merely feasible to document that an individual had either mild retardation or Down’s syndrome. In essence, these two statements are needed for a diagnosis of the patient’s condition. Moreover, various mentally retarded individuals demonstrate several major behavioral or emotional problems that should be documented for the objectives of giving medical care (Porter, 2002). Daily (2000) says that a doctor must look at a full family history, medical history-including pre and post natal periods and any significant illnesses. Developmental screening should be done at each well baby visit. They also suggest such screening tools as the Denver Developmental Screening Test or the Kansas Infant Developmental Screen. There have been attempts to classify the levels of severity of mental retardation. Thus far, four classifications have been identified which are based on cognitive functioning: (1) mild mental retardation; (2) moderate retardation; (3) severe MR; (4) and profound MR (Macmillan, Siperstein, & Gresham, 1996). According to references made in one study done by de Bildt and colleagues (2004) the DSM-IV classify a person with an intelligence of 55 or 60 to about 70 are mildly mentally disabled; IQ level 35-40 to 50-55 are Moderately Mentally Disabled; IQ 20-25 to 35-40 are Severely Mentally Disabled. Any scores below are considered Profoundly Mentally Disabled. Yet, apart from cognitive functioning it is also important to identify the personality traits of individuals with mental retardation since very little known about this particular aspect of the disorder. A study was done by The Institute of Child Therapy of the City of Amsterdam, Netherlands. They were looking for typical personality trait in a group of mildly mentally retarded children. They used a Multivariate Personality Test. They determined that there are some relations between certain personality traits and mental retardation. However, they also noted that the personality traits of the mentally challenged students do not necessarily explain the intellectual deficits (Berk,1987). 1. Their study was done on a random sample of 33 boys the diminished mental capacity between the ages of 9 and 12 and the Child Personality Questionnaire of Porter and Cattell was administered to each. 2. Type also performed the test on 35 boys the same age with more normal mental capacity. 3. The only trait that seemed to remain slightly consistent in the boys with MMR was: insecurity, apprehensiveness to try new things and diminished attentional abilities. The scores in all of these categories were slightly higher than those of the “average” intelligence boys. A great deal of research has been devoted to the nature and symptoms of mental retardation but the essential issues are the forms of isolationism enforced nowadays and the impact of the partial isolation of students with EMR/MMR on the students themselves and on education. Forms of Isolationism Today—Early Intervention for EMR/MMR Students Remedial curriculums offered in the period of early childhood are generally called ‘early intervention’. The objective of early intervention is to effectively develop the learning capacity of children by maximizing their strong points and attempting to outwit their difficulties to enhance their wellbeing and daily activities (Porter, 2002). According to Daily (2000) in the American Family Physician, services should begin as soon as the child is identified so that they are ready to meet the expectations of the NCLB and IDEA driven classrooms. However, the naming of the programs of early intervention has been put into question. Diane Bricker thinks is it very important to use the right terminology for naming these programs. She believes we must be careful of the “label” we give children and their programs because labeling had far reaching consequences. (Bricker, 1993) 1. She says that infant and toddler programs are called—Early Intervention Programs. 2. Preschool Special Education Program or Early Childhood Special Education is best reserved for 3-5 year olds with disabilities. 3. She is slower to label the students themselves, however, notes that it is important to identify these students as early as possible in order to get them the need services. 4. On this Hobbs says “Categories and labels are powerful instruments for social regulation and control, and they are often employed for obscure, covert, or hurtful purposes . . . “ (Hobbs, 1975, p. 11) and “Categories and labels may open up opportunities for exceptional children, facilitate the passage of legislation in their interest, supply rallying points for volunteer organizations, and provide a rational structure for the administration of governmental programs (Hobbs, 1975, p. 13). In its task to provide a comprehensive report to the Congress about the degree to which the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) condition of IDEA is being addressed, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education annually gathers information on educational placements of mentally retarded school-age children served under Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and IDEA. In identifying the implementation of placements on a national scale, the Second Annual Report to the Congress on the Implementation of P.L. 94-142 made use four wide-ranging classifications to illustrate placement alternatives: ‘regular classes, separate classrooms, separate school facilities, and other environments (considered to be home or hospital settings)” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, 15). These then are the forms of isolationism or placements available for students with EMR/MMR today. Studies on the Outcome of Partial Isolation Emily Bouck (2004) investigated the present condition of Michigan’s secondary special education, focusing on mildly mentally impaired students. A survey was sent to 388 teachers of secondary special education. The survey contained questions concerning curricular methods and instructional contexts, observed effectiveness and contributor satisfaction. The findings were (a) there are disparities in curriculum methods and instructional contexts depending on district’s size; (b) there are low incidences of inclusion; and (d) poor degrees of satisfaction for curriculum and instructional programs for mildly mentally retarded students. Similarly, according to a case study done in England by Ben Simmons and Phil Bayliss, more often than not student with more severe learning disabilities are still being segregated into special programs (Simmons & Bayliss, 2007). 1. For the study they explored a school just for “special” needs students and the services they were receiving there. Then they examined another school with more inclusion practices. 2. They found that the special needs school did not show any more evidence of success with these students than the inclusion based school did. 3. They concluded that the quality of social interaction is central to the development of special needs students. Also, given the large amount of opportunities for peer interactions in the mainstream environment, regular schools may be able to support the students with special needs better. Because of these negative findings on the impact of special education or isolationism on students with EMR/MMR, as well as on the directions of curriculum programming and the design of instructional environments, the value and effectiveness of isolationism in enhancing intellectual functioning and satisfaction of mentally retarded students is put into question. In a recent national survey done by the Center on Educational Policy (2006), teachers cited the NCLB accountability standards for students with disabilities as their greatest implementation challenge (2006). The basic premises of the NCLB and the 2004 IDEA acts are that all students with disabilities should be included in the general education curriculum, classrooms and be assessed by accountability systems supported by research (Cole, 2006). The current studies on the forms, effect and benefits of partial isolation of EMR/MMR students demonstrate that isolation practices in place today must be sensitive to nomenclature so as not to be a catalyst in a child becoming a social outsider (Bricker, 1993). Furthermore, recent studies have shown that there is no evidence of any particular scholastic benefit when EMR/MMR students are isolated as against being integrated (Simmons & Bayliss, 2007). Therefore, the government is pushing for a more integrated approach as it seems to be the most beneficial (Cole, 2006). Discussion Investigation of research and practice shows unexpectedly little interest for the effect of classroom environments on the academic performances and problems of EMR/MMR students. Definitely, the common focus of the studies has been on individual students, with a general assumption that mental retardation has a neurobiological source. Therefore, a clear method of focus would be the one that puts emphasis on the interactions between particular features of the instructional environment and particular areas of adaptations, rather than simply on more large-scale relationships. Such a strategy is feasible as a means of identifying the functional relationships that influence the learning of young EMR/MMR students, and, hence, could provide parameters for interventions. Nevertheless, the studies were able to show that current practices of partial isolation are not proven to be scholastically beneficial for EMR/MMR students. The studies also show thet partial isolation has the potential to carry stigma with long lasting effects (Bricker, 2003). However, more studies need to be done to confirm the validity of the results found by Simmons and Bayliss. Future research on the topic should go beyond the traditional summarizing indicators, such as class size, in order to obtain a more comprehensive picture of what really transpires in classrooms. It is important to differentiate between formal and ideal features of curriculum programming and instructional environments, highlighting the difference between what should be accomplished and what really takes place. Therefore, in order to understand the effect of a program on the school experience of a child, it is essential to know the classroom environment and curriculum program at the functional level. This demands more decisive and more receptive strategies for evaluating schools and classrooms, and an enthusiasm to conduct research where the actual incidences take place, that is, inside the school classrooms. References Ainsworth, P. & Baker, P. (2004). Understanding Mental Retardation. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Berk, T.J. (1987). An analysis of personality traits in a group of mildly mentally retarded children with a multivariate personality test. Institute for Child Therapy of the City of Amsterdam Bulletin, 35-42. Bouck, E. C. (2004). Exploring Secondary Special Education for Mild Mental Impairment: A Program in Search of Its Place. Remedial and Special Education , 367+. Bricker, D. (1993). A rose by any other name, or is it? Journal of Early Intervention, (12)7, 89-96. Center on Education Policy, (2006). From the capitol to the classroom: Year Years of the No Child Left Behind Act. (Washington DC). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.cep-dc.org/nclb/Year4/Press Crockett, J. B. & Kaufmann, J.M. (1999). The Least Restrictive Environment: Its Origins and Interpretations in Sepcial Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daily, D.K., Ardinger, H.H., Holmes, G.E. (2000) Identification and Evaluation of Mental Retardation. American Family Physician. 62(5), 961-963. de Bildt, A., Sytema, S., Ketelaars, C., Kraijer, D., Mulder, E., Volkmar, F. & Mideraa, R. (2004). Interrelationship between Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G), Autism Diagnostic Interview- Revised (ADI-R), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) Classification in Children and Adolescents with Mental Retardation. J Autism Dev Disordlectron. 34(2), 129-137. Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is most of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22. Gersten, R., Schiller, E.P., & Vaughn, S. (eds.). (2000). Contemporary Special Education Research: Syntheses of the Knowledge Base on Critical Instructional Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hobbs, N. (1975). The futures of children. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kameenui, E., Chard, D., & Lloyd, J.W. (eds.). (1997). Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Macmillan, D., Siperstein, G.N., & Gresham, F.M. (1996). A Challenge to the Viability of Mild Mental Retardation as a Diagnostic Category. Exceptional Children , 356+. Mcleskey, J. & Landers, E. (2006). Classic Articles in Special Education: An Exploratory Investigation. Remedial and Special Education , 68+. Patton, J.R., Polloway, E.A., & Smith, T.E. (2000). Educating Students with Mild Mental Retardation. Mental Retardation in the 21st Century, 15(2), 80-89. Porter, L. (2002). Educating Young Children with Educational Needs. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin. Simmons, B., Bayliss, P. (2007). The Role of special schools for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties: Is segregation always best? British Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 19-24. Speece, D. L. & Keogh, B.K. (eds.). (1996). Research on Classroom Ecologies: Implications for Inclusion of Children with Learning Disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thomas, G. & Loxley, A. (2007). Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Tregold, A.F. (1937) A Textbook of mental deficiency. Baltimore: Wood Read More