Inclusion Rationale
Special Education in America has proven that students do not exceed in segregated programs, and yet tons of money and finite resources have been thrown into them. It is not a failure on the part of the students with disabilities or the special education teachers. The lack of success lies within the paradoxes of the structure and ideology of the program itself (Van Bockern, Brendtro, Brokenleg 2000). Children are floundering in an increasingly demanding world, unprepared for the challenges ahead of them. These children become discouraged and are in danger of hurting themselves and others (Van Bockern, Brendtro, Brokenleg 2000). Increased teen pregnancies, higher teen suicide rates, surges in crime and increased mental health problems in young people are some examples how society, and public education, is failing the youth. A lack of community is much to blame for this new trend in self-hatred. Full inclusion programs in public schools will help ease society’s problems and give children a new sense of community where they can fulfill their capacities.
By examining the arguments for and against inclusion in the context of belonging, it is easy to tell why inclusion is beneficial to our educational system. Inclusion benefits students with disabilities as well as the classroom community as a whole. These classroom benefits also occur on a macro level in society when the importance of belonging is implemented.
For inclusion to work properly, it must be defined and implemented in a way that promotes community. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (previously the Education for all Handicapped Children Act) states that every child has the right to a free and appropriate public education. To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities have the right to be educated in the least restrictive environment, alongside children without disabilities (Kluth, Villa and Thousand 2002).
Inclusion is not simply a service placement, but rather a way of constructing a school to function on the belief that each individual is valued (Conner and Fern 2007). Inclusion is not the standardization of schooling for all students. It is not asking teachers to treat all students identically. Instead, inclusion is just the opposite -the recognition of diversity and individuality in all students. All students have special needs at one time or another in their educational lives (Hougaard 2007). Providing teachers with the tools and abilities to treat all students on an individual basis requires a shift in the educational paradigm.
This new educational ideology must place belonging and community at the center of the classroom. This type of thinking has grown from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which can be displayed as a pyramid, with physiological needs at the base, then safety, then belonging and love, followed by self-esteem and mastery, with self-actualization on top (Kunc 2000). Currently our educational system focuses on achievement, or mastery. It is set up as performance-goal oriented, rather than learning-goal oriented. This means that the main worry for students is their performance or their appearance instead of their learning. Fear of failure is used as a strategy to control young people (Van Brockern, Brendtro, Brokenleg 2000). According to Maslow’s pyramid, mastery can only be achieved once a person’s need for love and belonging are fulfilled. Only then will students be able to learn instead of perform.
Children with disabilities have a lot to gain from the sense of belonging received in an inclusion classroom. Research has shown that the quality of relationships a student has is much more influential to their learning than any specific method or program (Van Brockern, Brendtro, Brokenleg 2000). Once children realize they are in a safe community, one in which they do not have to achieve high test scores or good grades to belong to, they are able to grow. If a child is constantly afraid of failure, she will not to succeed. It is only in a safe, loving environment that people begin to build self-esteem and work toward self-actualization.
The over-representation of certain minority groups in special education programs is another reason to support inclusion. Research shows that special education has considerable more students of color, children from ethnic minorities, working class and poor children and boys than it should according to population ratios (Conner and Ferris 2007). African American students are still three times as likely to be labeled as cognitively delayed than European American students. Special Education should not be used as a method to keep the status quo in classrooms by allowing teaching to rid themselves of students who might be disruptive. Inclusion, while it might not change the number of minorities diagnosed with disabilities, it will insure that these students will have a level playing field and the same opportunities to learn as other students.
It should be taken into account that some critics of inclusion state that by placing a child in a segregated classroom, they are protecting that child from the harsh reality of a normal classroom (Hougaard 2007). Instead of separating children to protect them in an ivory tower, it makes more sense to create a peaceful community in which all children can grow. It may be that in current classrooms, children with disabilities could face discrimination and cruelty from other students. But the same is true of any student. By modeling appropriate behavior and by implementing a no-tolerance rule for bullying, a classroom will become a safe community –fostering diversity and individuality. This is another change that will come naturally with a shift in ideology of public education that re-centers itself on belonging. Special education can no longer be used as ‘safe haven from an unwelcoming general education system’ (Conner and Ferri 2007). Once belonging is achieved, inclusion will help students move on to mastery.
It is important when contemplating mastery to realize that public education is not designed to standardize students. Schools are not producing molds of the ‘perfect child,’ despite our society’s obsession with uniformity and perfectionism. Mastery will be different for every student, depending on their personal capabilities. Inclusion should not be a strategy to minimize disabilities, it should be a system to help students achieve their full capacity (Kunc 2000). Students should not be placed in a regular classroom under the pretense of ‘belonging’ when in reality, they are being forced to copy (if not able to learn) the skills required to truly belong. Educators should allow all students, with varying capacities, to belong from the very beginning, then work on forming more advanced skills. Belonging is a basic need that must be fulfilled before mastery (Kunc 2000).
Another argument against inclusion that often arises in the area of mastery, is that a regular classroom doesn’t provide enough support for children with disabilities to learn (Kunc 2000). In reality, these segregated classrooms do not produce the desired results. Self-contained special education teachers often have the same complaints: that students seem disinterested in learning, that they are either incapable or unwilling to learn the skills needed to function in society (Kunc 2000). A reason this might happen is that these teachers are trying to prepare students for life, instead of giving them the skills to live life to the fullest every day. Many students spend their whole educations preparing for the real world, and end up in sheltered workshops or segregated prevocational training programs. Also, many students copy the behaviors of other students. This leads to reinforcement of appropriate behavior, making learning new behavior increasingly hard (Kunc 2000).
Part of the worry that normal classrooms cannot provide enough support to teach children with disabilities is the lack of training general education teachers receive. While it is true that most teachers are not experts in specific disabilities, research has shown that it is more important for teachers to provide organized, thoughtful lessons than it is for them to be experts in one kind of disability or another (Hougaard 2007).
Inclusion not only benefits children with disabilities, it also creates positive results for other students and society in general. Teaching a generation to value individuality and accept people for who they are can only have a positive impact on society. Our challenge is to create a society that flourishes because of our diversity instead of despite our diversity (Kunc 2000).
Non-disabled children in inclusion classes not only benefit from the atmosphere of belonging, they are also taught tolerance. Many parents report that their non-disabled children are ‘not as fearful’ of children with disabilities (Conner and Ferri 2007). Non-disabled children are given a chance to develop their generosity when dealing with other students who have different capabilities than themselves. Many times, it is the other students in the class that understand and bond with the students with disabilities more than the adults present.
Inclusion is a way for schools to provide the community and sense of belonging all children need to succeed. Although inclusion is the law, many schools still do not embrace the value of diversity in their classrooms. Even today, 25 years after the law was implemented, some schools still place children with disabilities directly into segregated classrooms where the students may never have the chance to enter general education classrooms with their peers
(Kluth, Villa and Thousand 2002). Inclusion must be understood and implemented with the spirit of belonging and love to see the many benefits it can bring to all students, not just those with disabilities. It may be the only way our society can stop this down-ward spiral of setting up our youth to fail.
Bibliography
Connor, D. and Ferri, B. (2007) “The conflict within: resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes
in special education.” Disability & Society, (pp. 63-77). Vol. 22, No. 1.
Hougaard, M. “The changing paradigm: from inclusion to belonging.” (2007) Journal of Child
and Adolescent Mental Health, 19(2): iii-v
Kluth, R,;Thousand, J.; and Villa, R. (2001) “Our School Doean’t Offer Inclusion” and Other
Legal Blunders. Educational Leadership. December 2001/January 2002.
Kunc, N. (2000) “Rediscovering the Right to Belong.” In R.A. Villa, Ed.D., & J.S. Thousand,
Ph.D. (Eds), Reconstructing for Caring and Effective Education, (pp. 77-92). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Van Bockern, S.; Brendtro, L.; and Brokenleg, M. (2000) “Reclaiming our Youth.” In R.A.
Villa, Ed.D., & J.S. Thousand, Ph.D. (Eds), Reconstructing for Caring and Effective
Education, (pp. 56-73). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
