Mainstreaming Handicapped Children in Regular Classrooms
This paper examines the practice of mainstreaming — placing mentally or emotionally handicapped children in regular classrooms alongside non-handicapped peers. It traces the roots of mainstreaming advocacy to the 1960s and the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, then surveys both supporting and opposing arguments. Proponents contend that integrated settings foster social skills, self-esteem, and academic achievement, while opponents warn that handicapped students may not receive the specialized attention they require. The paper concludes that mainstreaming, when accompanied by adequate teacher support, collaborative resources, and flexible service delivery, benefits all students and better prepares handicapped children for life beyond school.
- Introduction to Mainstreaming: Definition, history, and federal legal context
- The Case for Mainstreaming: Educational, moral, and social arguments for inclusion
- Arguments Against Mainstreaming: Teacher concerns and special education advocacy
- Balancing Both Perspectives: Stigma, self-esteem, and peer socialization debate
- Support Structures for Effective Mainstreaming: Collaborative models and practical classroom support
- Conclusion: Mainstreaming benefits all when properly supported
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper presents a clear thesis early — that mainstreaming is appropriate and beneficial — and sustains it by engaging both supporting and opposing viewpoints rather than ignoring counterarguments.
- It grounds its argument in federal legislation (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975), giving the thesis legal as well as educational authority.
- The conclusion moves beyond simply restating the thesis to offer a practical model, discussing the specific support structures — principals, consultants, paraprofessionals, parents — that make mainstreaming workable.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates balanced argumentation: it presents the strongest objections to its own position (stigma concerns, lack of specialized attention, teacher discomfort) before systematically rebutting them with evidence and logic. This technique strengthens the thesis by showing the writer has considered and responded to opposition rather than simply asserting a view.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional introduction grounded in law and research history. It then develops the affirmative case using moral, social, and educational rationales, followed by a dedicated section on opposition. A transitional section addresses both sides, and the extended conclusion pivots to practical application — detailing what effective support looks like in real classrooms. This structure (define → argue → counter → synthesize → apply) is a solid model for persuasive academic writing on a contested educational policy topic.
Introduction to Mainstreaming
In education, the practice of teaching mentally or emotionally handicapped children in regular classrooms alongside non-handicapped children is known as mainstreaming. There has been increasing interest in this practice since the 1960s, driven by numerous factors. For example, research has shown that many handicapped students learn better in regular classrooms than in special classes. In addition, there have been charges that racial imbalances existed in special education placements. The federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which states that all handicapped children have the right to a "free and appropriate" education in the "least restrictive environment," has been frequently interpreted as supporting the expansion of mainstreaming (University Press, 2003).
Mainstreaming has worked well with segments of the special student population whose disabilities are compatible with a regular classroom setting, and is generally felt to better prepare handicapped students socially for life after school. It has also helped other school children gain a better understanding of those with disabilities. It has been controversial, however, with students who have emotional or behavioral difficulties that may be disruptive to the entire class. Some also argue that children with special needs cannot receive adequate individual attention in an integrated classroom.
This paper argues that mainstreaming handicapped children is both appropriate and beneficial to all students. It examines existing literature on the topic to determine the most effective methods of mainstreaming and how to improve the mainstreaming process.
References
McIntyre, M. (October, 1992). Should schools eliminate gifted and talented programs? NEA Today, p. 39.
Saskatchewan Education. (1986). Toward the year 2000: Future directions in curriculum and instruction. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Education.
Stanviloff, L. (2002). Support for classroom teachers involved in mainstreaming students with severe handicaps. SSTA Research Centre Report #96-10, 60.
The University Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. (2003). University Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.