Including Students With Disabilities in Mainstream Classrooms

Introduction to Inclusion and Legislative Framework

One of the great challenges of teaching today is successfully including a wide diversity of students in the classroom. Especially at the elementary and high school level, the classroom tends to be filled with representatives from a variety of cultures and learning styles drawn from the surrounding community. Since the 1970s, this diversity has also come to mean the inclusion of students with any level and variety of disabilities, whether psychological or physical. Teachers with such students in the classroom face a unique set of challenges and responsibilities — both toward the students with disabilities and toward the rest of their classes. Many studies have been conducted regarding the phenomenon of inclusion and how it can be effectively implemented.

One example is a case study concerning a 15-year-old boy with severe disabilities whose parents advocated for his inclusion in a mainstream high school classroom (McKee, 2011). The main finding of this study shows that, with effective communication among all parties involved, such inclusion can be successful.

The decision to include the young man in a mainstream high school classroom was based upon Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975 and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Included in this legislation is the least restrictive environment (LRE) statement, requiring that, whenever possible, children with disabilities should be educated alongside those who are not disabled (McKee, 2011, p. 1).

The Case Study: Collaborative Inclusion in Practice

The case study concerns a 15-year-old boy with severe disabilities who was included in general education classes in a four-year high school in a Midwestern city. This was accomplished through the consultation and collaboration of the boy's parents, school administrators, special education staff, and general education teachers.

One interesting element of the study was that all the professionals involved, along with the parents of the young man, expressed support for the inclusion effort (McKee, 2011, p. 192). However, deeper investigation revealed that the professionals involved with the student made qualifying statements about inclusion — acknowledging it as a "good thing" while also noting "some dangers" and "some drawbacks." Others held that inclusion should be "reasonable and realistic." In other words, McKee observed a perceived disconnect between inclusion in theory and what actually occurs in practice. The parents, by contrast, were overwhelmingly positive about inclusion.

Parent-Educator Tensions and Points of Disagreement

During McKee's investigation, she observed tensions developing between the parents and members of their son's education team. One particular incident occurred during the student's first year of inclusion, when the assistant principal, the special education teacher, and the paraeducator believed they observed a behavioral issue: the student was falling asleep in class. The educators interpreted this as an avoidance measure resulting from feeling overwhelmed by the demands of the regular classroom. Despite the parents' assertion that the issue was medical — specifically an arousal disorder — the special education teacher continued to treat it as behavioral, and the paraeducator was instructed to do the same. This caused significant tension between the parents and the instructors until the matter was resolved by adjusting the student's medication.

Another area of disagreement arose in year two, when an Area Education Agency (AEA) consultant recommended that the student receive extra-curricular life-skills and job-skills training three afternoons per week. The parents believed that, at the school level, the best life-skills training for their son was observing and interacting with his classmates, and that job-skills training would be most useful only after his high school career was completed. This became another point of tension between the parents and educators. Both parties, however, agreed that inclusion was highly beneficial for the student's socialization and general learning.

In reviewing the case, it seems clear that the parents' decision to include their son in mainstream high school classes was a sound one. Even those educators who expressed reservations ultimately agreed on the benefits the student derived from inclusion.

Conclusion

Cases like the one discussed by McKee provide evidence in favor of including even students with severe disabilities in the mainstream classroom. The case demonstrates that, while philosophical differences and communication gaps can create tension among parents and educators, these challenges can be overcome through open dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to the student's well-being and educational progress.