Mainstreaming legislation and disability rights in America

Mainstreaming

People who have severe disabilities have lived under centuries of legalized reliance and exclusion. With every law that showed the liberalizing of society's commitment to disabled people has come the realization by disabled people that prejudice in the community didn't really end. This discrimination continued because oppressive changes were introduced to limit society's responsibility and the few progressive changes that were introduced were never supported financially. It has become evident that institutional prejudice shall not be overcome by good intentioned but uncoordinated and financially unsupported changes.

With these centuries, even millennia of prejudice and oppression, society has made our dependency apparently inescapable. Many disabled people, cannot work except in sheltered workshops at often less than the minimum earnings. Many physically disabled people cannot travel on commercial transportation without submitting to patronizing assistance or inconveniencing regulations that fluctuate from company to company. Many disabled people cannot live in their own homes because personal care attendants will only be paid for by society if they live segregated in institutions. There have been numerous cases of parents who are disabled, having their children taken from them because the child would not he raised in a normal environment. In divorce proceedings between a disabled and a non-disabled parent, custody has been awarded to the non-disabled parent based on this kind of prejudicial perception of normality.

Unlike distinctiveness that should not affect the expected costs and benefits of hiring or serving a person, disabilities can frequently enforce noteworthy costs on employers or owners of public accommodations. To avoid economic prejudice between people with and without disabilities, any added costs connected with hiring a disabled person that should be reflected in lower reward paid to the disabled person. Likewise, any significant additional cost of selling a good or providing a service to a disabled person should be offset with higher prices paid by the disabled person. If employers and owners of public accommodations were forced to bear those costs, they would effectively be forced to engage in economic discrimination against the nondisabled, and overall economic efficiency would be diminished.

It is under this kind of basic denial of our human and civil rights that disabled people survive with little or nor services. What service that was provided was full of routine red tape and regulations that kept us dependent. There was no harmonization of available services that would break through this vicious cycle of dependency.

Legislation for Mainstreaming

The first legislation effort to outlaw some forms of discrimination against the handicapped was the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Originally, that act defined "handicapped individual" as any individual who (A) has a physical or mental disability, which for such individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment and (B) can reasonably be probable to benefit in terms of employability from vocational rehabilitative services.

Subsequent amendments in the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978 redefined the term "handicapped individual" as any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life functions, (ii) has a record of such impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such impairment. (U.S.C. 706)

In 1986 the Rehabilitation Act was again amended to replace the term "handicapped individual" with "individual with a handicap."

That amended definition became the basis for assign disabled people under the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, as changed by the Fair Housing Amendments Act, excludes as a handicap current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance. (U.S.C. 3602) Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, "disability" replaces "handicap." However, section 511 of the ADA specifically excludes individuals with the following situation from protection under the act: homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not ensuing from physical impairments, other sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, and disorders resulting from the current illegal use of drugs. (U.S.C. 12211) Those barring under section 511 of the ADA do not apply to the sale and rental of housing covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended.

Supporters of the ADA claim that 43 million Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities. (U.S.C. 12101) To disembark at that seemingly high number, however, the supporters treat all 31 million Americans who are age 65 or older as disabled. Although some elderly Americans are mentally or physically disabled, many clearly are not. More sensible estimates from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research suggest that the number of Americans suffering from serious disabilities is much smaller. Roughly 7.9 million Americans have some form of vision impairment, but fewer than 400,000 are actually blind. Likewise, only 1.7 million of the 21 million people with hearing impairments are in fact deaf. Even individuals confined to wheelchairs, the group most commonly thought of as disabled, number only 720,000. (National Health Interview Survey, National Institute on Disabilities and rehabilitation Research. Visual and hearing impairment data are from the).

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The costs imposed on the American people by earlier attempts to ban discrimination against disabled individuals are minor in contrast with the crushing burdens mandated by the ADA. In each of its four major titles, the ADA pursues, with enthusiastic disregard for economic costs, its stated goal of mainstreaming disabled individuals. The provisions of the ADA and the regulations resulting from it are frequently outlandish. 102(a) of the ADA provides that no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such entity in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and rights of employment. (U.S.C. 12112)

Methods of instructing America's youth. Mrs. Judy Hernandez, a seasoned professional who has been teaching in Howard County, Pennsylvania for thirty-five years, argue that the system is cyclical in nature and that all educational methods have been tested in one way or another even if they claim to be "new." The latest issue of inclusion, where students with mild to severe learning disabilities are included in the regular classroom with special assistance, is cyclical as well. "My learning-disabled students used to get pulled out in the 80's, then included in the 90s, says Mrs. Hernandez, "We won't ever reach a definite answer."

Perhaps we will not, but the debate persists as teachers, administrators, and parents across the country continue to look for an answer. As with most controversial issues, there are ardent supporters who admire inclusion and equally passionate nonbelievers who claim inclusion is of little to no advantage to disabled learners and their non-disabled peers. Somewhere in the middle is a supporter like myself, who believes that inclusion may work well for some students and not very well for others.

Justification for Inclusion

Much has been written about rationale for amalgamation special and general education and resulting benefits of properly conducted inclusive programs (Stainback & Stainback, 225-239). Yet, rationale and benefits of inclusion seem to have been vanished in all the rhetoric of rights and moral imperatives. In addition, anticipated benefits have not been seen in many so-called inclusion programs, because these programs have been so poorly executed. What was it that made so many people so excited about inclusion? Two factors in particular seemed to stand out when discussing the rationale for inclusion.

First, and perhaps the most reason was inclusion promised parents that their child with a disability would be part of a larger group and a true member of a general education class. While friendships could not be forced, opportunities for forming friendships with peers without disabilities became much more practical when children with disabilities where based in general education classes (Brown, et al. 1-7). Simple things such as talking with friends in class, playing together on the playground, chatting over lunch, getting ready to go home, and sharing excitement of assemblies and other school-wide functions seemed to be more difficult to plan when children with disabilities were alienated from peers without disabilities (Ferguson, 281-306).

A second critical reason was the fact that empirical research showed a divide, dual system of special education (mostly self-contained) and general education were relatively unproductive and inefficient. For example, reviews of research by (Wang and Baker 503-521) found integrated settings when implemented properly, were more effective in helping students with disabilities achieve both academically and socially while shunning negative effects e.g., lower self-esteem, less confidence, lack of motivation that often had been associated with segregation. Similarly, graduation rates; post-secondary education, employment, and residential independence were considerably lower for children with disabilities most of whom were in segregated programs compared to children without disabilities. More recently, research has shown that individualized and even exclusive instructional techniques can effectively be carried out within the general education setting. It look that separating children with disabilities for educational purposes, while well intentioned, was not effective or necessary.

Benefits of Inclusion

What of benefits of properly conducted inclusive programs? Were benefits of inclusive programs anticipated by advocates in the 1980s found in the 1990s? Recent research has, in fact, supported benefits of inclusion not only to the child with a disability, but to non-disabled children and to general education staff (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edesman, & Schattman, 359-372). However, it is vital to remember these benefits are only available in properly conducted inclusive programs.

Inclusion in education involves the processes of increasing the participation of students in, and reducing their exclusion from, the cultures, curricula and Inclusion involves restructuring the cultures, policies and practices in schools so that they respond to the diversity of students in their locality.

Inclusion is concerned with the learning and participation of all students vulnerable to exclusionary pressures, not only those with impairments or those who are categorized as 'having special educational needs'.

Inclusion is concerned with improving schools for staff as well as for students.

A concern with overcoming barriers to the access and participation of particular students may reveal gaps in the attempts of a school to respond to diversity more generally.

All students have a right to an education in their locality.

Diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome, but as a rich resource to support the learning of all.

Inclusion is concerned with fostering mutually sustaining relationships between schools and communities.

Inclusion in education is one aspect of inclusion in society. Inclusive education means disabled and non-disabled children and young people learning together in ordinary pre-school provision, schools, colleges and universities, with suitable networks of support. Inclusion means enabling pupils to participate in the life and work of mainstream institutions to the best of their abilities, anything according to their needs.

Because children whatever their disability or learning difficulty have a part to play in society after school. An early start in mainstream playgroups or nursery schools, followed by education in ordinary schools and colleges, is the best preparation for an incorporated life. Education is part of, not separate from, the rest of children's lives. Disabled children can, and are, being educated in mainstream schools with suitable support. There are many different ways of achieving this.

Conclusion

Approximately 80% of students with learning disabilities obtain the majority of their instruction in the general classroom. Disabled children gain real life experiences when dealing with regular students. They deal with the daily mockery and challenges that only make them stronger against those that may put them down. Dealing with and learning from daily problems now will only help disabled children as they grow up in an unkind world. Fascination in regular curriculum gives disabled children a chance to test their abilities. Disabled children can test their skills and see what areas they excel in. After children find something they excel in, they can use that talent in future objective. Disabled children are given a chance to challenge their minds and thus grow mentally. By doing so, they may increase their learning capabilities and advance in their education. Because children may only be disabled in certain areas of prospectus, immersion will give them a chance to keep up in classes they are mentally able to. By giving disabled children the chances they deserve, their mental and physical abilities are able to pick up and thus improve their education. Even though education in regular schools can be challenging for learning disabled children, including them can enhance their self-esteem, develop their social skills to help them survive in the world, and give them a possibility to be exposed to regular curriculum. Everyone at some point in their lives will be exposed to people with handicaps.