Does anyone know a lot about mainstreaming and inclusion with disabled students?

Question

I am doing a debate, and me and my partner are FOR mainstreaming and inclusion with disabled kids (not separating disabled kids and regular kids, but keeping them together).
We need to
-anticipate arguements that the team against us will make
-make arguements of our own on why we want mainstreaming and inclusion
-come up with questions for the other side, for example, if they use the arguement that "disabled kids are a distraction to class", we would ask them, "well, wouldnt you think that it is more distracting when a kid is sitting in his desk with his cell phone or iPod out?"

anything you have i will appreciate!!
thank you so much!

Answer 1

Mainstreaming and inclusion are two very different practices. What gave you the impression that they were the same? Many educators refer them the same thing when it is really not. Here are the definitions.

Mainstreaming is the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes during specific time periods based on their skills. Schools that practice mainstreaming is called mainstream schools.

Inclusion is the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes for all or nearly all of the day instead of in special education classes. Schools that practice inclusion are called inclusive schools.

In the eyes of the general education teacher, it is the same because special needs students are in the regular classroom. However, in reality it is different.

If you ask me which one I like better, I would choose inclusion. Maria Montessori in my opinion is the founder of inclusion. No one out there loved children as much as her. She wanted "children to learn together". The goal of society is to learn to live together. And how do we do that? We need to learn from each other! Mainstream schools encourage bullying and that's how school shootings start. They don't encourage the students to learn from each other. That's why they have a lot of bullying. That is the best reason for why inclusion should be used instead of mainstreaming. If you choose inclusion, you will win. Advocates of mainstreaming can't say anything over that reason because they know that they don't encourage students to learn together. Make them feel guilty by saying "mainstreaming caused school shootings to happen". Mainstreaming is the reason why school shootings happen. Inclusion would teach all students to learn to live together. Therefore, school shootings would never happen in inclusive schools.

Answer 2

There are different disabilities that one can talk about. If you are talking about a physical disability than they can be included and mainstreamed fairly easy. However, it depends on the IQ of the disabled. Some students who will never be able to do the work of a student in any class but are just pushed along due to the age is a detriment to that child and to others. In classes the teachers are to focus the material on the level of the lowest in the class- however, the rule makes it difficult and someone is left behind and stuck doing work that is not challenging. If you talk about mainstreaming and inclusion then think of the old style schools where the children learn at their own level and think of a charter school. I do believe children should not be allowed to be passed along for the sake of graduating or obtaining a special education certificate.

Answer 3

Mainstreaming and inclusion are two separate practices. Mainstreaming means that the child is in a separate class and goes out to regular ed for specific classes. Inclusion means that the child is in regular ed all day, hopefully with support from a special ed teacher.

Some arguments against these practices:
1. Frequently principals do not hire enough teachers to adequately serve included students.
2. In theses days of results based evaluations, for which a teacher must rigorously prepare the class, what if the child interferes with the pace of the class.
3. Frequently regular education teachers have not had any training in presenting materials to sped kids. In the teacher's busy schedule, there is no hope for adequate training.
4. Often included students are scattered throughout a building, which makes it impossible to adequately serve included children.
5. Many teachers teach at only one level of instruction. When children are completely included, how are they going to complete work if they are two or three grade levels below what he or she is teaching?
6. Children who are several grade levels below their actual grade level do not receive the intensive remediation that is required to move up a number of grade levels.
7. Every school district is experiencing budgetary constraints. How can a district possibly supply enough special education teachers to make inclusion work properly?
8. Often specifically trained professionals such as speech therapists, occupational therapists and vision therapists are often required by the child. How are these professionals going to deliver their services adequately in an inclusive classroom?
9. Often children in inclusive schools do not make sufficient progress to advance to the next grade. It is damaging to the child's self esteem to keep being held back.
10. Included children frequently require more attention from the teacher. This is going to impact the instruction of the other children in the class.
11. Some children with behavior disorders or severe ADHD problems are often disruptive even in special classes. If a teacher has weak behavior management skills, this will significantly impact the instructional process.

These are just a few of many that could be asked.

Work on your argument about the cell phone. That is not going to cut it. Schools often do not allow cell phones or Mp3 players and take them away if students use them. It is a rarity to ever see one in class, whereas the special education student's behavior is ongoing.

Answer 4

Once upon a time it was recognized that some students had special needs ... some are physically disabled and need access to buildings that have steps with no ramps, that are hostile to people who are blind ... some are mentally disabled ... some are genius and need help to realize their full potential. So these kids were separated into different groups of special teaching to get them the best that was possible for their differences.

But this was very expensive, and meanwhile there was an effort to insist that ALL students meet certain standards.

So there was a mandate to mainstream the kids with special needs. This saved a LOT of money, and spread the grief out to all teachers to try to bring them up to the same level as other students.

You may have noticed in the news that recently we have been having a lot of school shootings & when it is diagnosed how come, it turns out that a lot of the culprits were students with some kind of special need, some kind of mental problem, that had we been spending money to identify kids with mental health problems, and do something constructive about it, 90% of these school shootings would not have happened.

But that problem is larger than the mainstreaming issue.
Funding for mental health is hurting badly.
School shootings are just one symptom of a much larger problem.

In larger society, an enormous amount of money has had to be spent to enforce access for disabled people, and most of this is because of brain dead beaurocrats who cannot think outside the box.

Where I live, any time a disabled person moves in, there is a moveable sign planted in front of the apartment building, disabled parking space reserved for that family, and a ramp from street to their porch. This means that family has fast & easy access to their apartment. It also means the property owner does not have to retrofit the entire complex to make disabled access for the 95% of tenants who do not need it.

Answer 5

I have lots of "againsts," and I am very much for access for the disabled:

- they don't get the attention they need, and they create a situation where the OTHER students in the class don't get the attention they need. A high proportion of Section 504 students (disabled) are mentally disabled--they have ADHD and more serious problems, and are a handfull. They sometimes will purposely disrupt a class. These students are not receptive to rules of conduct, as a rule (such as don't use your iPod).

-- the cost for some mainstreaming is $50,000 or more. I would look at the cost of private school or separate schools that cost more in the short run, but save money in the long run b/c groups of students have vastly different needs, and are not getting them met.

-- accommodations are also expensive. Making an entire school accessible is ridiculous for a handful of students, yet school districts must spend millions and millions of dollars to do this. There is better use for the money. If new schools are built accessible, shame on them, by the way.

Answer 6

http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/idea.lre.fape.htm

great article with good info...frequently inclusion and mainstreaming are used interchangeably. They both refer to having children in special education being in the general education classroom. There is no definition provided by the federal government for either word. The federal guidelines are driven by FAPE = Free Appropriate Public Education, with Appropriate being the issue - some children can't be in general education classes no matter how much support or many modifications are made (if a child has no control over any part of their body) and other children need just a few modifications and a little extra help to be successful in a general education classroom.

Good luck in the debate.

Answer 7

what teacher lets students sit with their cell phone out? an ipod is quiet with earphones so how is that a distraction? Is it a disservise to the disabled student to be in a general ed. class? Can they keep up with the work? Is the class properly set up for the disabled student?

Answer 8

Depending on the disability, at times it is better not to separate spec. ed. students from the mainstream. At times some of these kids pick up "bad' behaviour from kids in a contained class and itsn't it better to have them learn proper behaviours from a mainstream than from a contained class?

Answer 9

i think of that principals could desire to quit seeing it as a manner of reducing group and comprehend greater source instructors are mandatory. additionally, source instructors choose information with scheduling so as that they could be the place they are mandatory while they are mandatory. Too frequently secure scholars are scattered throughout a grade point in distinctive instructions, so there is not any wish of one source instructor with the ability to help all of them. finally like each new a very professional way of teaching scholars, practise desires to be provided so as that the two favourite ed instructors and source instructors tips about the thank you to artwork with one yet another. regrettably, the inclusion actual everyone seems to be looking instructors and young babies to bounce off a cliff without parachute.