Inclusion Over the Past Few

Inclusion

Over the past few decades, a movement has existed for students with disabilities to be included in the general education classroom. Though the terminology has changed over time, from mainstreaming, to integration, and finally to inclusion, the debate has remained the same. Would students with disabilities receive a better education inside a special education classroom, or should they be included with their peers and be educated in the general education classroom? Many parents have considered inclusion as an entitlement for their child (Conner 66). They felt that the segregation the special education classroom created did not provide as many academic benefits as being in the general education classroom. In the early 1990s, parents began to pressure school districts to fully include students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Studies over the past thirty years that have focused on parental and educator attitudes about inclusion have reported mixed results. While some parents are in favor of inclusion, many are adamantly against it. The same can be said for educators. Regardless of opinions, parents and educators alike simply want a free and appropriate public education for students, as the law stipulates. However, they often disagree on which approach, method, or setting the best education is provided in. Every child is entitled to an education, and inclusion is a very controversial topic. Therefore, the effectiveness of inclusion in the general education setting must be evaluated in order to draw educated conclusions.

Critics of inclusion have express valid concerns. Parents often speak of the negative attitudes that general education teachers have about special education students. In "A Mother's Thoughts on Inclusion," Margaret Carr touched on this issue. As a mother of a child with special needs, she pointed out typical comments she heard from teachers. Some suggested that special education students could do the regular education work if they tried harder. Others proclaimed

2

that students with special needs were immature or lazy (590). General education teachers often overlooked the fact that the special education teacher has the ability to provide students with assistance, coping strategies, and techniques that would assist in understanding what they were working on in the special education classroom (591). Rather than "immature" or "lazy," special education students often require a modified curriculum and/or specific accommodations to be successful. It is also true than many general educators report that they are unwilling to include students with disabilities in their classrooms. Some teachers have reported that because students with special needs were "less mature," they sometimes witnessed them become the "bully" of the class. Overall, including special education students in the general education classroom, in the opinion of many general education teachers, causes an increase in disruption that can negatively impact the learning for all in the classroom (Conner 68). The treatment of special education students in the general education classroom has been another great concern. Many parents and educators fear that students with disabilities may be ridiculed by their classmates (Leyser 272). For some students with disabilities in the general education setting, it is not teasing and ridicule but alienation that has been commonplace (Conner 73). Questions about physical and emotional safety have surfaced, with the potential existing for verbal or physical threats from general education peers. On the other hand, concerns have also been raised about opportunities for the child with the disability to harm others if proper supervision is not kept (Leyser 272). A third concern for critics of inclusion is that special education students may regress as a result of being placed in the general education classroom. If seen as a burden by the general teacher, the students may not receive as much attention as needed (Conner 67). If the quality of the program in the general education setting is not comparable to that which was being received in the special

3

education setting, then the academic progress of students is likely to stagnate, or even regress (Leyser 272). In addition, if general education teachers have not been adequately trained, they may lack the knowledge to accommodate and modify the curriculum properly. The concern about regression can be linked to the issue of money. Many who support inclusion claim that it could save the educational system large amounts of money. If inclusion provides a better alternative to education, critics wonder, then why does it cost so much less? Many feel the answer is because the students are receiving fewer services and a poorer quality of instruction, removing money from the very children who need it most (Leyser 272; Conner 67). Some parents are worried that districts may see inclusion as a means to save money, particularly in these harsh economic times. Although special education can be quite cost prohibitive, the services rendered are necessary in order to provide a free and appropriate public education to students who qualify for special education.

Educators have reported specific concerns as well. Many general educators felt that inclusion was "forced" on them and that they had neither input nor choice in the matter (Anderson 45). Administrators have been reported to have simply announced that the school was going to begin following an "inclusion model," with little warning, resulting in general education classrooms often not being prepared. General educators routinely lacked the proper training for meeting the needs of special education students in the general classroom (Taylor 580). Many teachers have received only basic instruction about the needs of special learners (Conner 72-73). Other teachers felt that with their lack of training, they could not adequately integrate the special education students into the general education curriculum, meaning that the only change that has occurred is a simple change of scenery for the special education student.

4

The special education teacher or paraprofessional still provided the instruction, only now it occurred in the general classroom. The special needs student has not become an active member of the classroom, but simply an extra kid in the corner (Anderson 47). Some teachers have worried about how much inclusion will increase class sizes, how will inclusion affect grading, and how will the workload be divided (Anderson 45). Critics of inclusion finally proposed that the terminology itself, inclusion, suggested that students with disabilities have been "left out" of something that they should now be "included" in, thus furthering the gap between the special education and general education students (Anderson 44).

Supporters of inclusion have concerns as well, although their concerns center on students being served in a special education classroom. Some parents felt that removing their child from the general classroom to place him or her in a separate classroom or school was detrimental, and many felt that it could even cause academic harm (Conner 66). Segregating children with disabilities could create the message that the children are unacceptable to be part of "the general population" (Anderson 46). Supporters state that students with disabilities have limited access to the general education curriculum in the special education classroom (Conner 67). Inclusion has been presented as a way for special education students to learn social skills from "normal" peers (Carr 590). If segregated into a special education classroom, special needs students may interact very little with their peers, preventing them from engaging in social opportunities that are vital for all children. Those in favor of inclusion propose that general education students benefit as well, as they are likely to become more sensitive to differences and accepting of peers with disabilities over time (Leyser 281). Inclusion benefits both disabled and nondisabled

5

children socially, allowing them to interact on a daily basis, thus providing opportunities for each to see the other as a peer of equal standards (Conner 66).

Many roadblocks exist that have the potential to prevent the success of an inclusion program. Knowledge of these possible roadblocks may serve not only for successful implementation, but might even assist in the overall goal of pinpointing what the "least restrictive environment" is for special needs students in order to service their needs in the best way possible. The first roadblock that often prevents a successful inclusion program is a lack of support. This can present itself in a number of ways. If support does not exist from the superintendent and/or school board, the implementation will likely fail (Worrell 53). Simply having a negative attitude can be detrimental to inclusion efforts as well. Research has shown that positive attitudes result in a more positive atmosphere for inclusion. The reverse is true as well. In a 1981 study conducted to assess attitudes of teachers and nonteachers about inclusion, Liora P. Schmelkin proposed that the efficacy of an inclusion program relies heavily upon the environment in which it takes place (42). The results of Schmelkin's study found that more general education teachers and nonteachers than special educators felt that mainstreaming would have a negative impact on special education students. The special educators included in this study indicated that they disagreed more strongly to statements that suggested inclusion would negatively impact the academic achievement of special education students (45). If parents, teachers, administrators, and other personnel present negative attitudes, the faculty and staff who teach in the inclusive classroom may find it challenging to achieve success, because the networks of support have been destroyed (Worrell 44). Seeking support before a program is put into place is crucial, as it is this network of support that will serve to assist in solving the problems that will

6

inevitably arise.

The second common roadblock is inadequate planning and scheduling for inclusion. Planning and scheduling should not only occur at the local level, but at the district level as well (Worrell 53). Often, the entire organizational structure of a district needs to be examined and revamped for an inclusion program to succeed (Stainback 144). Making certain that there is not an "overload" of special education students within one general education classroom takes much planning and effort on the part of teachers and counselors. Planning also includes making certain that special education students are provided with all appropriate services that they would have received had they not been placed in the inclusion classroom setting (Worrell 53). This not only includes accommodations and modifications within the classroom, but speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, or other related services as well. During the planning process, school districts should define what they mean by inclusion, as which and how practices are implemented varies greatly from one setting to another. Having a clear idea of where an inclusion program is headed will provide a greater chance for success (Worrell 43). In addition, planning should take place long before the program is to be implemented, not concurrently or after implementation has occurred, which has become commonplace in districts throughout the country.

A third roadblock is lack of training about inclusion for faculty and staff. When a district values inclusion, it will provide professional development for faculty targeting how to modify curricula and adapt techniques in order to reach all students. Students with special needs will be educated in the general education classroom, but the educators will be better equipped with the tools that they need to succeed (Taylor 580). Training, however, does not only refer to

7

professional development. Because most general education teachers have taken as little as one course on special education, it is critical that they become knowledgeable about the many facets of special education. Without specific information, and knowing where to find the information, a general educator will have difficulty teaching in the inclusive setting. To be successful, the educators must familiarize themselves with students' Individualized Education Programs, or IEPs, which includes information about disability, educational need, accommodations, modifications, and other important information. Knowledge of laws that may affect special education students and teachers is also vital (Worrell 45). Training should be provided to both the general and special educator. If teachers are not trained on how to share the instructional responsibilities within the same classroom, tensions will likely rise, which will only serve to be detrimental to the students. if, however, a clear plan is created beforehand, students will be able to reap the benefits. Students should also be met at their level of need by teachers, who should understand and practice accommodation and modification in the appropriate situations (Worrell 50). Expectations for students should be sared by all faculty and staff who work with a particular child. The more information educators arm themselves with, the more successful they can be.

A fourth roadblock is a lack of collaboration. Much collaboration should take place for success in the inclusive classroom, particularly between the general education and special education faculty and staff. If little or no collaboration occurs, questions may arise in the inclusive classroom that are never answered, such as at what level or pace should be used for the content that is taught, what should the expectations be, when and what should be modified, what accommodations should be used, and similar questions (Worrell 46). The teaching staff are not

8

the only individuals who should participate in regular collaboration. Collaborative efforts should extend district-wide, to include administrators, counselors, psychologists, social workers, speech and language therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and any other personnel that have a vested interest in the education of students in the school system (47). Only through collaboration that is meaningful for the success of an inclusion program will effective practices emerge (46).