Students with visual impairments: inclusion versus traditional schools for the blind

Students With Visual Impairment

The words "inclusion," "full inclusion" and "inclusive education" narrowly defined by educators of students with severe disabilities to adopt the philosophy that all students with disabilities, regardless of the nature or the severity of their disability shall receive their total education within the regular classroom setting (AFB, 2005).

According to Smelter, Rasch and Yudewitz (1996), inclusion is placing special education students in regular education classrooms and bringing the support services to the child, rather than bringing the child to the support services. This means that instead of drawing the child away from normal or regular students, inclusion keeps special students learn in the same environment as the regular ones.

A consensus among educators about the benefits of inclusive placement for learners with disability has emerged during the past 22 years (McLeskey & Pacchiano, 1994; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1994). Conversely, inclusion was only advocated during the past decade for all learners with disabilities, including those with severe disability (Bicklin, 1985; Everson & McNulty, 1995; Hanline & Hanson, 1989; Giangreco, Cloniger, Dennis, & Edelman, 1993; Hanson & Widerstrom, 1993; McDonnell, McDonnell, Hardman, & McCune, 1991; Shriner, Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Honetschlager, 1994; Stainback & Stainback, 1984) perhaps due to several debates or resistance regarding this matter.

Full inclusion of young children with special needs has a variety of definition. In some countries inclusion of these children into normal school is encouraged as a means to enhance early development.

As declared in 1990 by the United Nations Convention in the Rights by the Child, all children including those with special needs has the right to be provided with basic education and enjoy full participation in their communities (Evans, 1998). In full inclusion it is assumed that children and families with diverse developmental needs, from diverse cultural-linguistic backgrounds and diverse social experiences, are accepted and accommodated with sensitivity and respect in high-quality early childhood programs (Early Childhood Resource Teacher Network of Ontario, 1997). Teachers, parents and children preparation for innovation is required for inclusion (Peck, Hayden, Wandshneider, Peterson, & Richardz, 1989). Environmental modifications in ensuring that programs are physically accessible by children with disability is not only what composes the preparation but also enhancement of all participant's knowledge about children with special needs and appropriate instructional strategies, and developing positive attitude towards inclusion (Irwin et al., 2000)

Moreover, a similar approach, assumes that the collaboration of parents, early childhood educators, resource teachers/consultants, center directors, and professionals from community health, medical, and social agencies is actively sought and used to provide effective programs for children with special needs and their families (Irwin, Lero, and Brophy, 2000).

On the other hand, a study done by Corn (2003) regarding students' perceptions of their education placement at a special school for the blind concludes that student's perceptions and attitudes must be coupled to the attitudes and feelings of teachers, administrators, and parents when education placements and decisions are made. Students felt that attending a school that did not cater exclusively to students with visual impairments would not afford them with the same level of academic support that they were currently receiving. Hence, students in this study believed that they were placed at a special school because their local school could not adequately provide for their education.

In support, Sandra Lewis (2002) also mentioned that lifelong inclusion is the ultimate goal in the education of students with visual impairments, but the class room inclusion may not necessarily always be the best method to achieve the goal.

Educational Dilemmas

Placement dilemmas arise for students who appear to need more than the local school is able or willing to provide. Schools for blind and visually impaired students are often an ideal choice, even for a short period of time, so that necessary skills and understanding can be taught (Chase, 2000).

In addition, the concept of normalization provides another dilemma. Humanity has struggled for centuries with definitions and descriptions of "normal" behaviour and function. There are no standards by which such issues are judged. Each of us has so many descriptions to identify "normal" state. Parents and educators hope students will move on to live "normal" lives, if that implies living and learning in normal environment. However, considering a blind person with learning disability; what does "normal" mean for this individual? Is it the role of regular schools to "normalize" these visually impaired individuals (Chase, 2000)?

Students with visual impairments deserve teachers who have highly sophisticated training and a skill to meet their unique needs (Chase, 2000). However, in full inclusion students with visual impairments have unique educational needs which are most effectively met using a team approach of professionals, parents and students. In order to meet their unique needs, students must have specialized services, books and materials in appropriate media (including braille), as well as specialized equipment and technology to assure equal access to the core and specialized curricula, and to enable them to most effectively compete with their peers in school and ultimately in society (AFB, 2005).

Some countries opposed the integration or full inclusion of specials students, while other countries support the role of full inclusion. According to Lieber et al. (2000), "one of the more recent educational innovations that have been inspired by changes in public policy is inclusion." Fullan (1991) has noted, "Systematic implementation of inclusion is a complex process that goes beyond legislated action. And that all participants need time to understand the pedagogical nature of change." Efforts to bring about inclusion must take into consideration not only pedagogical, procedural and attitudinal factors, but also the evolving socio-political realities and relationships that will have an impact on individuals and environments as inclusive practices are implemented (Peck, Furman and Helmster, 1993).

Disabled alongside not disabled (Advantage)

Arguments supporting inclusion generally center around the benefits derived both academically and socially for children with disabilities. Academic achievement is enhanced, advocates contend, when children with disabilities are expected to adhere to the higher standards that usually exist in the-regular classroom setting. Furthering this argument, supporters stress that these higher standards are necessary because special education students are far less likely than their non-disabled peers to graduate from high school, successfully maintain employment, or live without assistance provided from a variety of sources (O'Neil, 1993). Models of appropriate social behavior are more readily available in regular education classrooms; students have the opportunity to form friendships with non-disabled peers as well as with those who live in surrounding neighborhoods (Willis, 1994; King, 1997).

Special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of disabled children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994)."

Advocates for full inclusion endorse the practice of placing all students with disabilities in a regular education classroom housed in their neighborhood schools regardless of the nature or severity of their exceptionalities. Full inclusionists favor the abolishment of placement options (e.g., self-contained classrooms, homebound instruction, special schools), advocating instead that all special education students should receive instruction in the regular education classroom. This environment, supporters stress, more appropriately reflects mainstream society and establishes a supportive, humane atmosphere for all students (Behrmann, 1993; Johnson, Proctor, & Corey, 1994; Sapon-Shevin, 1994; Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Staub & Peck, 1994; King, 1997). Advocates further imply that special education provided outside the regular education classroom is cost ineffective; student potential is limited when labels are applied; students frequently endure long bus rides to locations housing special education programs; and the special education curriculum lacks continuation and flow (Behrmann, 1993; Haase, 1993; O'Neil, 1993).

A body of research educating children with disabilities in classrooms alongside children without disabilities has shown positive effects for children with disabilities in areas such as reaching individualized education program (IEP) goal, improving communication and social skills, increasing positive peer interactions, many educational outcomes, and post-school adjustments. Positive effects on children without disabilities include the development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities and the enhancement of social status with non-disabled peers (Bennett, Bruns and Deluca, 1997).

The Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) endorsed by the National Association for the Education of the Young children published a position Statement on Inclusion in April 1993 which gives strong support on the ideals of inclusive classrooms as well as parent involvement within such settings.

This was supported by Hilton & Henderson (1993) saying that these two are important trends in the education of children with disabilities.

Consistent with the pursuit of more naturally existing supports, some parents said that they viewed themselves as the coordinator of services because they knew their child best and had both the historical perspective and vested interest in their child's future (Giangreco et al., 1991).

As mandated by the Education for all the handicapped Children Act of 1975 (now the individuals with disabilities Education Act), the latest practice is a trend of approaches to meet the requirement of "least restrictive environment" and to place student's with disabilities in general education class room with out-of-class special instruction.

Serving students with a full range of abilities and disabilities in the general education class room with appropriate in-class support is how Roach (1995) defines inclusion using this practice. Friend & Bursuck (1996) noted that children with disabilities are considered as full members of the classroom learning community in such setting with their special needs met there. Students with disabilities are helped to establish and maintain social networks and opportunities to be accepted by no disabled peers (Farmer & Farmer, 1996; Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994). Students with severe disabilities developed social networks, positive interpersonal relationships, and friendships with students without disabilities (Hendrickson, Shokoohi-Yekta, Hamre-Nietupski, & Gable, 1996).

Surprisingly, according to authors Cloninger & Giangreco (1995), Harig & Romer (1995), students who are deaf blind or have other severe or multiple disabilities are being educated in general education classes has increased. Sharp, York and Knight (1994) added that the inclusion of students with disabilities is not associated with a decline in the academic or behavioral performance of students without disabilities on standardized tests or report cards.

In the Minneapolis, Minnesota, children with visual impairments have been served in regular schools since the early 1900s (Deno, 1978). According to Bertess (1976) the basic requisites for inclusion were (a) education for every child under as near normal circumstances as possible, (b) to keep educational opportunities open to all children, and - to make parents partners in the education of their children which is called principle of "progressive inclusion. Educational Programs for children with special needs under the same principle were offered in Tacoma, Washington.

Schroeder (1996) noted that educators whether teachers and school administrators have a moral responsibility to consider the effects of their education practices on blind children's perceptions of themselves as whole blind persons or as defective sighted persons. "Positive attitudes and cooperation among staff and trained professionals facilitate inclusion success" and that additional services training, extra time for collaboration (York & Tudidor, 1995). Brady, Swank, Taylor, and Freiberg (1992) corroborated that the attitudes of middle school instructors could influence the effectiveness of learning by students with mild disabilities who were included in general education programs. In addition, instructors who had volunteered for training exhibited different patterns of interaction with students from those exhibited by teachers who had not volunteered for training.

In a survey conducted by Tracy Evans Luiselli (1998), she stated:

The majority of the parents had strong opinions about educating their children in inclusive settings and had positive attitudes toward the concept of inclusion. Parents interviewed by phone reported that their children benefited from inclusion in numerous ways, particularly in regard to increases in social, academic, and developmental skills, availability of appropriate role models for behavior, and friendships with peers."

She quoted Ryndak et al., (1995) "These benefits are similar to those reported in an interview study with parents of children with moderate to severe disabilities in inclusive educational settings because parents and their children are most affected by the outcomes of the inclusion process, it is important to include parents, and children when possible, in studies investigating the "benefits" of inclusion.

Disabled alongside not disabled (disadvantage) hostile world, a world where it is not acceptable to be blind, where using alternative methods is not encouraged, and where social isolation is common. As he describes his early experiences, it seems almost as if he, a person with significant low vision, were forced to "fit" into an educational system that was not designed for people like him. As a result, he felt for a long time like an alien in this world (Kuusisto, 1999)."

On the contrary to inclusion advocates' calls for fully inclusive classrooms, critics argue that many students with disabilities are best served in non-inclusive settings, noting that many students with disabilities or students who were gifted were originally pulled from the regular education classroom because they were not well served there (Kauffman, 1995): Teaching as if "one size fits all" disregards the individual needs of special education students. Moreover, when the demands of servicing students with disabilities, some severe, are added to the regular education classroom, the needs of low, average, and above-average students are often ignored (Delisle, 1994). Enhanced academic achievement and self-concept of students with disabilities, regardless of placement, are unsubstantiated through prolonged research (O'Neil, 1994). This lack of systematic and comprehensive empirical evidence supporting inclusion practices could negatively affect regular and special education students, as well as their teachers (Lewis, Chard, & Scott, 1994; King, 1997).

We are likely to find that inclusion in general education provides physical access but not instructional access for most students to the supposedly rich and varied general education curriculum offered in general education classrooms. But physical access to a place can restrict access to the instructional procedures that are most effective for students with learning problems (Kauffman, 1999)."

Even if expertise were available, extensive use of specialists in ways that were traditionally employed when students with disabilities were educated in separate special education classes and schools may not work well in general education classrooms because of significant contextual differences" (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993). Some serious medical attention may be needed yet such may not be included in the school program. The demand for teachers catering those children with special needs will increase. One essential determinant considered in the success of inclusive service is the quality of the early childhood program (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993). According to Buysse, Wesley, & Keyes (1998) and Doherty-Derkowski, (1995) general factors of program quality, such as unfavorable class size, poor teacher-child ratios, low licensing requirements, and stability of staff, have been cited as barriers to inclusion.

Opponents of inclusion assert that many local school boards, state departments of education, and legislators favor inclusion simply to reduce the costs of special education programs (Shanker, 1994). Furthermore, skeptics of inclusion charge that, in an effort to make the inclusion classroom appropriate for all students, the more able children may experience boredom and special needs children may experience frustration when trying to keep up with the average instructional pace. Consequently, achievement test scores of all students in inclusion classrooms could decline, and inclusion teachers would likely be held accountable (Brackett, 1994; King, 1997).

Behrmann (1992) has commented that schools need more special education personnel, not fewer, when students with disabilities are served in general education. There is not a lot of school in the world that can provide the elements of inclusion which Eleanor Guetzloe (1999) stated, "the most important elements of inclusion are attending the home school - the same school that neighbors, siblings, or non-disabled peers attend - and being placed in regular education classes (and included on the class rolls) with classmates of the same chronological age. At the same time, inclusion means having an individualized education program (IEP) as required by federal law and the supports (special education and related services) necessary for success in that environment."

Separate goals and a different agenda between the classroom teacher and the specialist, disruption of class schedule and routines of the specialist, overly technical and stigmatizing to students are the common difficulties of general education teacher who had a child with disability in the classroom (Giagreco et. al., 1993). In an interview done by Elaine Frankel (2004), some educators "described a lack of consistency across curricula in terms of offering courses in special needs, training institutions were not yet changing the way they were dealing with inclusion because for them it is not only a separate course but it is the language you use and the attitudes you demonstrate in all courses.

Disabled along side disabled (Advantage)

Little is known about what students perceive as the reasons for or the benefits of their educational placements at special schools; although one study has explored the perceptions of parents pertaining to their children's educational placement at special schools. These parents view special school as a place that has all the facilities helpful to the child with special need (Corn, Bina, & DePriest, 1995).

Attending a school that did not cater exclusively to students with visual impairments would not afford them with the same level of academic support that they were currently receiving. They perceived that in local schools they would experience larger-sized classes, less attention from teachers, and fewer opportunities to function independently. Students also felt that their local schools were not equipped with the trained personnel or resources, including the books, materials, and technology that existed in their special school. Educational setting for special children is better equipped than the normal setting. The students are given professional and trained personnel to teach and attend specifically to their need as compared to what their local school can offer. They have comfort being around other visually impaired students (Corn, 2003).

Disabled along side disabled (Disadvantage)

The common theme in special school is students centered on the nonacademic aspects of their programs. They were unhappy with the small number of students with whom they were able to socialize and felt that they were missing "real world" experiences. They felt that attending a local school would give them the benefit of a more active social life. Only a few students felt that they would have fewer friends if they attended a local school (Corn, 2003). Hence, students in special schools socialize less compared in local schools.