Do you really believe that inclusion is a sound educational practice/ Why?

Question

It is my opinion that while inclusion may be a fine social policy, it is a horrible educational practice. Mainstreaming, as appropriate, realizes both academic and social objectives. achieving integration of the child in areas where he may succeed

Answer 1

I am a Special Education teacher and have always maintained that inclusion can do more harm than good. If a student is academically ready to be mainstreamed then fine, but if the student is just being put in the regular classroom to "normalize" them, then I think it is wrong. Special Needs children are a different breed and need to be taught differently so that not only their academic needs can be met, but their social and emotional needs as well.

Answer 2

I doubt that any person backing "inclusion" has ever had a special needs child. Most rulemakers have absolutely no experience in dealing with the subject ~ whatever the subject happens to be. But isn't that always the way(?)

My daughter has a SEVERE speech impairment... that's it. She's smart as a whip. But I've seen her playing with a group of her classmates and within 5 minutes she's alone. It breaks my heart! They can't understand her and although they aren't rude (yet), they just sort of drift off. My daughter has also had 3 years of sign language (while she was in special needs preschools) and it was REALLY helping her. Now that she is in a regular classroom, the teacher doesn't know sign and so that's gone. My daughter can walk so now that she's in a regular class, she no longer qualifies for transportation (doesn't matter that she can't tell anyone who she is or where she belongs). I've been having to fight for every single thing she used to have and since I know the law, she will get them!

While inclusion is a good idea (on paper) as far as keeping kids moving ahead in their learning, they have given no thought to the additional training ALL teachers should go through (if ALL students are going to be taught correctly). Even a "simple" thing like a speech impairment WILL hinder her learning if not handled properly.

Some kids probably should be "stepped-up" to be included in a regular class all day, but they should not have a blanket policy for all kids, especially if the teachers don't have the ability to deal with each child's individual handicap.

Answer 3

obviously those of you who think inclusion is a good idea have never been in a classroom that had inclusion.....i am a substitute teacher and special ed major in college and i dont think that inclusion will last very long. in my experience having an extra teacher in a regular classroom trying to help other students is a distraction for everyone....and also these kids are being singled out even worse than before by having a special ed teacher come into the classroom and single them out in front of the whole class...because all the other children know that the teacher is in there because a specific child/children have a learning problem....these children are in special education classes for a reason...because the need special stradegies and help with learning styles and one on one help that they cant get in a regular classroom setting.....i see no benefits of inclusion and think it will be just another fly by night fad.....

Answer 4

I work in a Life Skills elem. classroom. Some of the kids were starting to go out for inclusion for Science and Social Studies. It was more of a social aspect than the learning but the student was not happy and couldn't do the work at all. SOme situations I agree that it does need to happen but not all kids can adjust and I don't feel it's appropriate for all.

Answer 5

I believe that inclusion needs to happen, but only at an appropriate level. Inclusion should be based on the needs of the student. If the student is a severe/profound mental retardation student, then it doesn't make sense to have them in a regular education classroom for the majority of their day. They need to be in a specialized classroom that is going to help them gain skills necessary for life. Including them with their regular education peers for music, PE, etc. is a more appropriate step for all students.

Inclusion is also important for regular education students. It helps to teach them that not everyone is alike, but everyone has a purpose in life and deserves to be treated as a person. Learning occurs on both sides when handicapped students are in the regular education classroom.

Answer 6

It depends on what you mean by "inclsion." As practiced, it isn't.

There is a wealth of information on inclusive practices--dating back to the 1900s with efforts to place blind and deaf students in regular classrooms--that shows many students with disabiities not only do well, but also benefit from being included in a regular social environment.

But--unfortunately, "inclusion" in current practice means that virtually all students with disabiities are placed in regualr schools--often schools that are not equipped for them. And it is common practice for 'inclusion" to actually turn into a vicious apartheid in which "special ed' studentes are shunted off into classrooms where they receive little real education--they are little better than day-care centers.

This not only deprives the students of education, it reinforces stereotypes of people with disabilities as helpless--the exact opposite of what "inclusion" is supposed to achieve. In addition, often students who have severe intellectual disabilities are enrolled--right through their high school years. In the process, this minority whose disabiity precludes mastering academic material do not receive the training and therapy that in many cases could make them largely (or at least partly) independant--so they end up sitting at home after they "graduaate"--with an institution as their final destination.

Further--the mantra of "inclusion" as practiced under the Indiviuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) effectively protects school systems that fail to provide adequate accomodations and support. One (of many) examples of this is the "IEP diploma/certificate"--schools are allowed to issue these to special education students in lieu of a high school diploma--and do so routinely forstudents who have the ability to do the work, but have been denied the requisite accomodations or learning support. These "diplomas" are, of curse, virtually worthless. At least a few colleges have begun accepting them anyway--because they have become aware that these so-called diplomas are being used to label students as "un-educable" to exxonerate the schools.

There is a final problem with inclusion. Often--particularly in small communities--a disabled student is the only one in a class--or even an entire school. And children being children, this is not a good social environment. While inclusion (if done properly) is positive, it needs to be in a context where these students also have a chance to be with and interact with other students with disabilities.

At its core, the problem is that special education and inclusion should be about making sure every child receives an education that maximizes that child's potential. That's not only morally right, its good public policy--it fosters independance. And the cost--to taxpayers--of a lifetime of dependancy is always far higer than the cost of an adequate education. But what has been created is a system in which children with disabilities are physically present on the school campus--and otherwise largely segregated and excluded from the opportunity to get a real education. "Inclusion" has become, in effect, a more subtle form of the segregated and infeior education African-Americans were victimized by under the "Plessy v. Ferguson" doctrine of separate but equal schools in the Jim Crow South prior to the Civil Rights Movement.