Inclusion In Education Essay, Research Paper
Fewer subjects in education evoke more discussion, confusion, or apprehension
than the topic of inclusion. What is inclusion? What effects will inclusion have
on the classroom? What is the impact on teachers? More importantly, are we as a
nation prepared to face the challenge brought about with inclusion? These are
only a few of the areas that we will explore as I attempt to unravel the issues
surrounding inclusion.
The true essences of inclusion is based on the premise that all individuals
with disabilities have a right to be included in naturally occurring settings
and activities with their neighborhood peers, siblings, and friends. Moreover,
supporters of inclusion believe that the heart of inclusion refers to the
commitment to educate a child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school
that the child with the disability attends. It is believed that the child will
benefit from being in the classroom with ?normal,? if you will, students.
(Education World, 2000)
One of the strongest arguments for inclusion has a philosophical, moral and
ethical base. This country was founded upon the ideals of freedom and equality
of opportunity. Although the idea of freedom and equality for all have not yet
been fully realized, we as a society are constantly struggling to achieve it for
all, disabled children included. Proponents of inclusion argue that labeling and
segregating a student is indeed an injustice that will affect the student for
years to come. Supporters of inclusion would rather that we admit that all
students have strengths and weaknesses that vary from student to student. By
making such an admission we no longer view those with disabilities as
distinctively different but as students who need to strengthen some areas as it
relates to education. (ERIC, 1998)
On the other hand, opponents of inclusion argue that special education
programs are designed to meet the needs of students who need special help. Such
programs are not designed to segregate or deny any student of their basic
freedom of equality. In essence, it seems that we are taking steps backwards.
Special education programs emerged because of the non-adaptability of regular
classrooms. Very little if anything has happened to change the setting or
adaptability of today?s classroom; therefore, why are we to believe that
children will now benefit from inclusion. (AFT, 1996)
Special education classrooms are designed and equipped to handle the
diversified needs of disabled students. Teachers are trained to teach those with
special needs. Public Law 142-92 comes at a time in which the educational system
is already fragile. Reports such as ?A Nation at Risk? call for raising the
standards of education with in the American schools. Oponents of inclusion argue
that the school system can not handle the additional burden of educating special
needs students in the classroom.(AFT, 1994)
A poll conducted by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in West
Virginia revealed that ?78 percent of respondents think disabled students won?t
benefit from inclusion; 87 percent said other students will not benefit either.?
Citing numerous concerns expressed by many of its national membership, the AFT
has urged a moratorium on the national rush towards full inclusion. Among the
concerns is the time factor involved in educating special needs students.
Furthermore, depending upon the disability, the classroom could become a hostile
environment for all of the students. The report goes on to cast a suspicion that
school administrative motives for pushing for inclusion is influenced by
finances rather than what is best for the students. Including all students in a
regular classroom would cut the cost associated with special education by
eliminating special equipment, materials, classrooms and additional personnel.
(AFT 1994)
Supporters argue that while it might appear to save money by ?lumping?
all of the students together, if the program is properly implemented there will
be little if any financial benefit as a result of inclusion. Additionally, for
inclusion to work a commitment must be made to move the needed services to the
student rather than to place the child in a segregated setting. An inclusive
education program would allow time weekly and in some cases daily for regular
and special educators to concur. Special educators will become consultants as
well as teachers. The regular classroom teacher would ultimately be held
accountable for the successes and or failures of the student with special needs.
(Education World, 2000)
Opponents would argue how could we hold a regular classroom teacher
accountable for needs that are outside of (his or) her area of expertise.
Furthermore, the idea that students will embrace and want to become ?peer
buddies? with special need students is simply an assumption with little if any
research to support it. Students are very unpredictable. Teachers, parents and
special needs students all have concerns with the emotional impact of inclusion.
They are cautious because of the fears of mockery or ridicule by the other
students. (ERIC, 1998)
Nevertheless, it is believed that teachers who have low-ability students have
lower expectation for the entire class. Furthermore, the segregated programs
tend to be ?watered down? and lack individualized plans. Whereas, special
education teachers have higher expectations for the students as well as special
curriculum that is appropriate for special need students. The fact is,
individualization is more likely to take place in a small setting than in the
regular classrooms. In essence, inclusion could delay the educational progress
of the whole class. (AFT 1994)
Labels within themselves are not negative when properly applied. It is only
as we realize a student?s educ
benefit the student. Special education advocates contend that some educational
programming in regular classrooms is totally inappropriate for some special
needs students. Therefore, the programs would have to be watered down in order
to meet the needs of the special needs child. In this case, the needs of the
normal students will be neglected. Inclusion does not seem to make sense in
light of the call for higher academic achievement for all students says William
Tornilla, President of the Florida Education Association United. (ERIC, 1998)
A call for inclusion comes at a time in which we are testing more, not less.
We are holding teachers accountable and implementing curriculum that leaves
little room in some case for manipulation. Presently the barrage of competency
test, achievement test and so forth seems to be overwhelming even the most
flexible teacher. Tornillio goes on to argue, ?teachers are required to direct
inordinate attention to a few, thereby decreasing the amount of time and energy
directed toward the rest of the class. Indeed the range of abilities is just too
great for one teacher to adequately teach. Consequently, the mandates for
greater academic accountability and achievement are unable to be met.?
(Education World, 2000)
Proponents argue that teachers can overcome the burden of inclusion by using
team teaching, mastery learning, assessing learning styles and other
individualized and adaptive learning approaches. These are tools that are not
limited to the special need teachers, but are good practices to be exercised by
all teachers. For inclusion to work, educational practices must be
child-centered. Teachers will have to find where each student is academically,
socially, culturally and determine how best to facilitate learning. Long gone
are the days where the teacher can just learn a child?s name, medical
condition and a few limiting factors for that child. Instead, we expect the
teacher to be a sort of 2nd parent who knows everything about the student.
(ERIC, 1998)
In conclusion, those against inclusion would not argue that the present
special education program is problematic to say the least; however, regular
classrooms are presently fighting their own battles. The main concern on all
sides of the argument should be what is best for all of the students, special
needs and normal students alike. We can not afford to view inclusion as a simple
reconfiguration of special education services. Inclusion would involve a
complete overhaul of the entire education system at its core level where our
frontline teachers are already struggling. The relationship with special
educators, regular classroom teachers, parents and students will change
significantly. Learning will indeed need to be individualized to meet the needs
of all students.
Personally, I do not believe that we are prepared for the challenge of
integrating all students. The educational and social benefits expected to be
obtained from inclusion are amicable but unrealistic. Presently, children with
glasses, short hair and or suffer from obesity are ridiculed. I am not sure if a
student with a severe disability could handle the additional emotional pressure
associated with a regular classroom setting.
The world?s educational system is the yardstick that many use to evaluate
the quality of America?s schools. If we are to proceed with inclusion, I
suggest the proponents of it find a nation that has implemented inclusion
successfully and study their ?lessons learned? to prevent us from making the
same mistakes. Our children?s future depend on us getting it right the first
time. Let?s not produce a generation of young adults that will not be able to
compete in this global high-tech society.
As educators, we have a responsibility to educate all students. The means of
achieving this goal can be reached through several different avenues. However,
at this time, we are struggling to stabilize as well as raise the standards of
education as a whole. I believe that the special education system needs to be
changed in order to become stronger and meet the challenge of educating those
with special needs; but should not be demolished in order to implement
inclusion. If a house requires a major renovation, it is not necessary to level
every wall.
http://www.aft.org//about/resolutions/1994/inclusion.html
American Federation of Teachers, AFL?CIO – 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW -
Washington, DC 20001
Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL?CIO. All rights
reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from
the AFT.
Resolution on Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
AFT: About AFT: Resolutions: Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
AFT Home > About AFT A Proud Tradition A Diverse Union of Workers An
Innovative Union A Commitment to Quality An Issues-Driven Union A Tradition of
Social Justice AFT …
http://www.aft.org//about/resolutions/1994/inclusion.html – size 16.2K
Inclusion Can Hurt Everyone
by AFT President Albert Shanker
April 21, 1996
http://www.aft.org/stand/previous/1996/042196.html
American Federation of Teachers, AFL?CIO – 555 New Jersey Ave, NW -
Washington, DC 20001
Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL?CIO. All rights
reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from
the AFT.
AFT: Where We Stand: April 21, 1996: Inclusion Can Hurt Everyone
AFT Home > Where We Stand 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 Inclusion Can
Hurt Everyone by AFT President Albert Shanker April 21, 1996 Today’s guest
columnist is Romy Wyllie, an …
http://www.aft.org/stand/previous/1996/042196.html – size 11.3K