Within the school environment I am often questioned by parents, staff, and even community members whether students with exceptional needs benefit from inclusion within general education setting. Under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), “federal regulations require that children with disabilities be educated with their non disabled peers to the maximum extent possible” with the use of supplemental aids and services (Jimenez & Graf, 2008, p.75). Proponents of the inclusion initiative feel there are many benefits to exceptional learners being placed with their peers. First, there is improvement in the academic achievement of students with mild and moderate disabilities as they are exposed to the same curriculum standards as their peers. Research showed that students within the inclusion setting “achieved higher scores on Iowa Test of Basic Skills” and “comparable score on state proficiency exams in reading, writing, and mathematics” (Jimenez & Graf, 2008, p.81). In addition, inclusion provides an environment that benefits not only the students with special needs, regular education students, and those who may fall between the cracks or are labeled “at risk”. Inclusion with co-teaching can foster universal instruction and design for all students within the setting. Another advantage is the social integration of peer modeling with the appropriate behaviors to help students to prepare students culturally for the transition to adulthood within the community, known as the principle of normalization.
On the other hand, some parents and teachers are against the inclusion setting for the education of students with exceptional needs. Most people who have reservations of this movement work primarily with the children of severe/intense needs and emotional disabilities. Advocates are concerned that with the push of inclusion there would follow the elimination of the continuum of service. Parents are worried that those options/placements may be taken away from students. Furthermore, Jimez and Graf (2008) comment that even though special education is a service not a placement, services are sometimes offered in certain placements with low teacher to pupil ratio and specialized training by the staff. Another reason people are skeptical of the movement is the lack of training and services. Even though IDEA called for increased collaboration and federal funds for training for staff and personnel, not all schools have monies for this development. Resources need to be provided within this setting for students to reach their maximum potential. Lastly, inclusion require the attention and support of the administrators. Often leadership in the school tries to implement inclusion within the building without attention to the specialized training of the teachers. Teachers may not be equipped with the skills to implement the best practices within the setting, thus lacking the specialized instruction and universal design for learning.
My perspective on inclusion is centered around the concept of “least restrictive environment”(LRE). LRE does not mean that what applies for one child, applies to every child with exceptional needs. LRE is the setting where the appropriate educational plan can be delivered. We, as educators, need to promote the continuum of services for all students. Even Samuel’s father in the video, “Including Samuel”, questions whether inclusion in the general education classroom is the best place for Samuel after months of absences due to surgeries. On the other hand, I have worked with students who were mainstreamed, self contained for content area subjects, tutoring in the resource room, and co-teaching in the inclusive environment. I do believe that inclusion can work with the proper staff, resources, and support. The exceptional learners can achieve higher standards within the general education classroom than the self contained classroom, but the students also need the resource room to target skills that have not been mastered. If not, the gap keeps widening.
Kristin, I agree with your comment "Most people who have reservations of this movement work primarily with the children of severe/intense needs and emotional disabilities". My time working in a classroom for Emotional Disorders, helped me see why so many people are against it, even though a lot of students are benefited by inclusion. It is hard to watch students with Emotional Disabilities (especially at the high school level) be excluded from conversation and activities by their non-disabled peers in the inclusive classroom. Sometimes this makes them withdraw more and instead of helping them it hinders them, so I do see both sides to the argument. I feel that if non-disabled students were taught more about disabilities form a younger age (even in school) as they get older they would be more accepting of students with disabilities and they would welcome them into tier lives and the inclusive room. I also believe like you do, "that inclusion can work if there is proper staff, resources and support" for teachers and students.
ReplyDeleteKristin, I agree with you in that many people who have reservations or are concerned with the implementation of inclusion for their children are often worried about the discontinuation of services. Parents, who are willed to be strong advocates for their children, only want what they believe to be necessary for their students to be educationally successfully, and to the parents, losing any services would be detrimental. I can also agree in the skepticism regarding inadequate training. As an academic tutor of five years, I have worked with handfuls of students with exceptional learning needs and with a degree in Middle Childhood Education, I only have one course in Special Education under my belt. For years, I have felt that my college degree left me less than prepared. With that said, I haven’t been any less discouraged to work with students with exceptional learning needs; I’ve just desired more training to be prepared.
ReplyDelete