Pros & Cons of Inclusive

Pros & Cons of Inclusive Education Introduction The American Dream is based on equality, or the idea that everyone should be given an equal chance for success. If every citizen is given the chance to receive a quality education, each citizen has the ability to achieve. According to the White House, education has always been a fundamental part of achieving the American Dream; an educated citizen is more likely to hold a good job, escape poverty, own a home, start a business, be free from crime, and participate in America's democracy. In the past few decades, debates surrounding inclusion in education and education for students with disabilities have emerged as a significant issue, raising concern among disabled children, teachers, and those serving on educational boards. Inclusion is a term which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child, rather than moving the child to the services, and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class instead of having to keep up with the other students. Proponents of inclusion generally favor newer forms of education service delivery, and argue that the child always should begin in the regular environment and be removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom. Opponents of inclusion argue against it because the regular class gets ready for the child, and adaptations are made to the materials, the curriculum and/or the expectations of the activities for the individual child. This paper will discuss the reasons behind the debate regarding inclusive education, as well as the pros and cons of the controversial issue of inclusion in education. It will conclude with a brief summary and potential recommendations for future action in this area. Reasons Behind the Debate According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (2007), inclusion remains a controversial concept in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of individual worth. In analyzing both sides of this debate, questions regarding the equal manner in which children are valued must be raised, as well as the question of whether there are there some children for whom inclusion is inappropriate. In examining the pros and cons of inclusion, the concept of mainstreaming, or the selective placement of special education students in one or more regular education classes, must be taken into consideration. Proponents of mainstreaming generally assume that a student must earn his or her opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to keep up with the work assigned by the regular classroom teacher (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). Those that support equal education for all stress the fact that children should be given the equal right to receive the same type of education. Between the two extremes are large groups of educators and parents who are confused by the concept itself; they wonder whether inclusion is legally required, what is best for the child, and question what the schools must do to meet the needs of children with disabilities (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). Laws for the Education of Disabled Children There are several laws that have been enforced to meet the guarantee that disabled children receive the same quality education as those without disabilities. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the main federal program authorizing state and local aid for children with disabilities. The purpose of IDEA is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living (Frishman, 2007)." In December of 2004, a new law called the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act was signed, making significant changes in the law for the education of disabled children. The changes in this law include new provisions regarding how schools can determine whether a child may receive special education services. Another law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, provides fewer protections than the IDEA. Section 504 protects individuals from discrimination and entitles children with disabilities that limit a major life activity, such as learning, to a free appropriate public education designed to meet their individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of children without disabilities are met. Section 504 is probably the law that provides the most coverage for children with disabilities, because it states that all students with a disability have the right to a free public education by law. This includes special education and related services that are: (a) provided in an Individualized Education Program (IEP); (b) designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability; (c) meet state standards; and (d) are provided at public expense (Frishman, 2007). This law has also been the subject of some controversy; however, because it also provides for learning in the least restrictive environment. This means that children with disabilities should be educated with children who are not disabled, and that placement in special classes or removal from the regular education setting occurs only when the disability is so severe that satisfactory education cannot be achieved in regular classes with the use of supplementary supports. Section 504 also states that the special education setting must be as close as possible to the students local school (Frishman, 2007). Therefore, an analysis of Section 504 indicates that it supports both sides of the debate of inclusion in education. Pros of Inclusion Proponents of inclusion generally believe that all students belong in the regular education classroom, and that good teachers are those who can meet the needs of all the students, regardless of what those needs may be. Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time, and all services must be taken to the child in that setting. A majority of the research also sides with advocates of inclusion, arguing that inclusion supports the social needs and growth of children with disabilities. Children's social skills relate both to the quality and success of their school experiences (Meisels et al. 1996). Young children construct knowledge by interacting with others and their environment (Bandura, 1986). In order to interact successfully in a variety of circumstances and with a variety of people, children need to possess interpersonal skills. They need to feel secure enough to join, question and listen to their peers and adults. Other researchers examined outcomes in children randomly assigned to Head Start and a program wait list. These researchers found that when comparing health, social skills, cognitive skills and language skills, social functioning was not as strongly related to successful academic outcomes as were other indicators such as phonemic awareness, receptive vocabulary and health.

Proponents of inclusion also cite the fact that there are many studies that consistently report little or no benefit for students when they are placed in special education settings. Research by Weiner (1985), analyzed 50 studies comparing the academic performance of mainstreamed and segregated students with mild handicapping conditions. Weiner's (1985) results indicated that the mean academic performance of the integrated group was in the 80th percentile, while the segregated students score was in the 50th percentile. This conclusion supports the theory that segregated programs are detrimental to students and do not meet the original goals for special education. In addition, another study confirmed a small to moderate beneficial effect of inclusion education on the academic and social outcome of special needs students (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). Assessing inclusion from a cost-benefit perspective, Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun (1988) demonstrated that the integrated classroom for students with special needs was more cost-effective than the resource program, even though achievement in reading, math and language remained basically the same in the two service delivery models. Another study supporting inclusion, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, measured student achievement in the Success for All programs. In this study, a control group was compared with the students in Success For All programs. Comparative measures included language proficiency, reading difficulty, and student retention and attendance. Comparisons were made at first, second, and third grades, and students identified with exceptional education needs were included in all comparisons (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). While assessments showed improved reading performance for all students, the most dramatic improvements occurred among the lowest achievers. The research also found the best results occurred in schools with the highest level of funding, and concluded that when resources are available to provide supplementary aids, all children do better (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). While this study concluded that as long as more money was placed into inclusive classrooms to assist the disabled students, the disabled students performed better academically. Thus, proponents of inclusion have a very strong side, and their arguments are supported by several research studies. Cons of Inclusion There are also many researchers and studies that argue against inclusion; James Kauffman of the University of Virginia views inclusion as a policy driven by an unrealistic expectation that money will be saved (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). 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 drawn. Bibliography Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun. (1988). Integrated Classroom versus Resource Model: Academic Viability and Effectiveness. Exceptional Children: 339- 348. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373. Carlberg, C., and Kavale, K. (1980). The Efficacy of Special Versus Regular Class Placement for Exceptional Children: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Special Education: 295-305. Englert, C. (1984). Effective direct instruction practices in special education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 5(2), 38-47. Frishman, S. (2007). Special Education Advocacy 101. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.iser.com/resources/advocacy-terms.html. Meisels, S.J., Atkins-Burnett, S. and Nicholson, J. (1996). Assessment of Social Competence, Adaptive Behaviors, and Approaches to Learning. Working Paper #96- 18, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of 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 programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13, 9-16. The White House. (2004). Education: The Promise of America. Retrieved June 26, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/newsreleases/2004. Weiner, R. (1985). Impact on the Schools. Capitol Publications. Wisconsin Education Association Council. (2007). Special Education Inclusion. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm.