Furthermore, he argues
that trying to force all students into the inclusion mold is just as
coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into the mold
of a special education class or residential institution. Others argue
against the constant interruptions to the classroom by assistants of
disabled children, who must be there to assist the child in using the
bathroom, and other basic functions. These opponents argue research
studies regarding methods of instruction of the disabled student in the
classroom to support their side. For example, research by Sindelar et
al. (1990), indicates that extended seatwork activities do not work in
comparison to allowing time to socially interact with other students.
Many disabled students are not able to perform seatwork activities for an
extended period of time. This research supports theories that encourage
higher levels of student participation as well as bringing lessons to a
close by providing assignments for further practice are consistent with
teacher-directed learning. In other words, disabled children would still
benefit from the social benefits of interacting with other disabled
students, in a special education setting.
One of the most widely argued position by opponents of inclusion is
the disruption these classroom cause to the non-disabled student. As a
result of frequency disruptions due to the special needs of disabled
students, non-disabled students suffer some educational losses and
opportunities for learning at their regular pace. This is because the
special needs of disabled students can be distracting, and take away
valuable classroom time for the non-disabled child. However, there are
not a sufficient amount of research studies that have been conducted for
opponents to successfully win this segment of the argument.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Future recommendations for equality in education have been widely
written about. The majority of the research in this area generally
agrees that a continuum of placements, supports and services should be
made available for all students, but always assume that every student's
first placement is in regular education. According to the Wisconsin
Education Association Council (2007), all school placement decisions of a
disabled child should be based on a well-developed program with an
emphasis on the needs of the child, her/his peers and the reasonable
provision of services. In addition, before any new programs are
developed, the building staff must agree on a clearly articulated
philosophy of education (an education ethic) (Wisconsin Education
Association Council, 2007). Teachers and support staff must be fully
involved in the decision-making, planning and evaluation processes for
individual students and building-wide programs. Extensive staff
development must be made available as a part of every teacher's and
disabled student assistant's workday. Areas of emphasis include:
emphasis on higher-order thinking skills, integrated curricula,
interdisciplinary teaching, multicultural curricula, and life-centered
curricula (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007. As long as
these recommendations are implemented into the educational system, the
needs of both sides should be met successfully.
Finally, in the debate regarding the education of the disabled
child, there does not appear to be a wrong or right answer. A review of
the literature appears to support both sides, even though a lean toward
inclusion may appear to be more reasonable. The research in this are
indicates that education for disabled students should be considered on a
case-by case basis, because there are some disabled children that may
benefit from an inclusive environment without disrupting the regular
class, and there are other situations where the daily class interruptions
cause a conflict for the non-disabled children's learning experiences.
More studies in this area are needed before any final conclusions can be
Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun. (1988). Integrated Classroom versus
Model: Academic Viability and Effectiveness. Exceptional Children: 339-
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.
Carlberg, C., and Kavale, K. (1980). The Efficacy of Special Versus Regular
Placement for Exceptional Children: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of
Englert, C. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in special
Remedial and Special Education, 5(2), 38-47.
Frishman, S. (2007). Special Education Advocacy 101. Retrieved July 23,
Meisels, S.J., Atkins-Burnett, S. and Nicholson, J. (1996). Assessment of
Competence, Adaptive Behaviors, and Approaches to Learning. Working
18, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: U.S.
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Sindelar, P.T., Espin, C., Smith, M., & Harriman, N. (1990). A comparison
of more and
less effective special education teachers in elementary level
Education and Special Education, 13, 9-16.
The White House. (2004). Education: The Promise of America.…