Megan Zagrodniczek
10 April 2013
Happiness and Special Education
Special education programs across the country are beginning to change and
improve their curriculums due to reported unhappiness of the children placed in them.
Research conducted by Lotta Uusitalo-Malmivaara, Richard Peterson, and others have
shown trends of unhappiness in children in public special education programs. Despite
the fact that there have been successful public programs in the special education field, the
students’ happiness levels still vary. Until we can develop an effective program and get
public schools to implement it, these students will continue to achieve less than their
potential and remain being viewed as a group separate from societal norms. Programs,
known as inclusion programs, that put special education students with children without
any known disabilities in the same classroom, have been shown to be successful for both
categories of children. These programs have begun being implemented as the best
solution to improving the current special education programs. When executed correctly,
these inclusion classrooms have shown higher levels of happiness in children with and
without disabilities.
The special education programs that are currently the most common among public
school systems are those that provide a separate learning environment for students that
are intellectually disadvantaged (ID). These separate environments include classrooms
that are designed only for students with ID, certain times during the ID student’s day that
they are taken out of general education classes, or even classrooms that are separate from
the school building itself. When was it decided that students with ID are to be separated
Zagrodniczek, 2
from the general student population? According to Judy Kuglemass, a professor at
Birmingham University, the “separate special educational system was created…for
children with disabilities in the 1960's and 1970's because… parents and professionals
understood that providing an appropriate education for all children within the general
educational system requires deep cultural transformation” (281). This remains the
current attitude and is precisely what prevents the special education programs from
progressing toward more inclusive environments. However, according to Richard
Peterson, a professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, special education
programs are viewed as something that should be dealt with separately because of the
attitude that has developed through our laws. Laws influence our attitude toward society
and “history serves a powerful function in reinforcing these negative attitudes [toward
people with ID] while restraining efforts to weed them out” (385). The United States has
dealt with discrimination almost since it was founded, and now people are realizing that
discriminating against people with ID has negatively affected their happiness. This
discrimination and development of negative societal attitudes has lead to “…low
expectations… [in] efforts to educate children with disabilities,” resulting in curriculums
that do not allow children with ID to reach their full potential (376). Reaching a child’s
full potential is the goal of general education, and needs to be translated into the goal of
the special education field. The problem lies in the fact that the expectations for ID
students are set far too low. It is not that these students are not reaching the currently set
goals, it is that the goals are set so low that once they achieve them, they are not
motivated to exceed them.
Zagrodniczek, 3
The low expectations in the field of special education originated from our
society’s attitudes and as a result, negatively affected not only the programs themselves,
but the students, parents, and teachers in them. ID students begin learning early in life
that “they are different, in essence ‘less’ than others who are ‘normal’” by society’s
standards (Peterson 390). This awareness plays into how the child views themselves, their
accomplishments, and their potential. It is also “not uncommon for parents, service
providers and family members to regard [their student] as being unable to learn how to
take responsibility for their own lives” (Halpern 227). This perspective puts the child in
the position of always having to be cared for, so almost a burden. Being forced into that
situation can be very taxing on a student’s well-being and overall self-esteem. Certain
“character strengths are related to self-esteem, [and are]…strong predictor[s] of
happiness,” and since society plays into a person’s self-esteem and well being, a negative
societal attitude can end up having negative effects (Uusitalo- Malmivaara 431). Selfesteem is a large contributing factor in a person’s overall happiness. Without adjusting
our attitude as a society, the self-esteems in children with ID may never improve.
Students with ID are reportedly less happy because their classroom environment
is radically different than those of their peers without reported disabilities. Based on the
results of a study conducted by Lotta Uusitalo-Malmivaara and her associates at the
University of Helsinki, Special Pedagogy and Open University, special education
students were significantly less happy than “mainstream” students (422). The students in
the special education group of this survey were either fully separated from their
counterparts, or only separated some of the time. The fact that there is producible
evidence about ID students being less happy than their counterparts is enough to advocate
Zagrodniczek, 4
for changes. Thankfully, “…large increases in many individual’s happiness…[can] be
achieved by… simple and inexpensive interventions” like a new craft or program
introduced to a classroom’s curriculum (Favell 54). James Favell, of the Western
Carolina Center, focused his study on how incorporating simple things into the classroom
could create a noticeable enhancement. Replacing even the smallest items, such as
markers, can show the students that they are as important as anyone else, an important
aspect of a child’s self-esteem. Along with small material improvements, “…very simple
social interactions can have a large and sustained effect on the individual’s happiness”
(54). There is just as much importance in the simple things, as there are in the major
ones. Since many special education programs are not prepared for the large structural
change that needs to happen, improving the small things is where they need to start.
Although it is very important to consider the environment of a special education
classroom, that is not the only thing that plays into a student’s happiness. As Kugelmass
point out, “neither technical, structural, cultural, nor political analyses can, by
themselves, provide a complete understanding of what is needed to develop and sustain
these…” special education programs (288). It is impossible to ignore all other factors and
just focus on the surrounding environment, however, it is important to consider the
aspects of a ID student’s life that can be changed.
Improving special education programs in the United States has proven difficult
because it requires abolishing all current attitudes and curriculums that have been used
over centuries. Ideally, every school would be founded on “a deep appreciation for
diversity in all aspects of life and an unconditional love for all children,” but in reality,
that is not what every school stands for (Kugelmass 282). Developing a new attitude that
Zagrodniczek, 5
involves including ID students in the general education programs is not something that
every school is willing to adjust to. These students have been separated for so long that it
has become the expectation that they not only should be separated, but that it is for the
child’s own good. This greatly “excludes opportunities [for the student] to explore [their]
options and take responsibility for their own choices” (Halpern 227). When students are
given the freedom to explore, they formulate plans for their futures and feel as if they are
in control, eventually helping them raise their self-esteem and feelings of selfimportance. In the current programs, “special education students with cognitive
disabilities are…[often] less capable of finding optimistic or alternate interpretations of
their life events and are consequently less able to control the quality of their lives”
(Uusitalo-Malmivaara 421). If these students are allowed freedom in small aspects of
their lives, they will be able to feel a sense of control in at least a small way, giving
themselves confidence to conquer their future. However, none of this is even possible
without a supportive environment.
Supportive environments include well-educated teachers, an engaging classroom,
cooperative students, and flexible parents. Even though this seems likes an unrealistic
ideal, striving for this supportive system will help education systems to reach their goals
of improvement in special education classrooms. Recognizing the idea that every student
is different, but deserves an equal education leads to “collaborative decision-making and
curriculum development” that can promote higher success rates in the special education
setting (Kugelmass 286). It is not enough to want these improvements, schools need to
implement a cooperative attitude through their curriculums. Programs that are currently
seeing success are known as inclusion programs. These programs include students of all
Zagrodniczek, 6
learning abilities in the same classrooms with the end-goal of receiving a similar, wellrounded education. This kind of classroom promotes optimal social interaction and is
beneficial for both students with and without ID. However, there have been difficulties
in these programs. Peterson observes one inclusion program that has not been
implemented correctly:
A Kindergarten teacher attempts to explain directions to the tiny charges seated on
the rug before her. But a child with Down syndrome, focused on her own agenda,
remains the center of attention as she crawls about pinching the bottoms of each
child she reaches. ... Ear piercing screams come from a third grade classroom where
a behaviorally disabled child is expressing her displeasure at not being first to
observe the science artifact being passed amongst her classmates... Several children
talk or play together in one corner while classmates read or write. ‘What are they
doing? I ask. ‘Oh they don't understand what we're working on,’ replies the teacher.
‘I'm told they're supposed to be here. I've tried, but I don't know what to do with
them. An aide comes in for half an hour.’... In some elementary schools teachers
team up to get through the day. A disruptive, emotionally disturbed child is sent to
sit in the other classroom to ‘calm down,’ after which time he may return to his
assigned classroom. ‘This helps give the other children a little break from him,’ the
teacher explains”(384).
The teacher in this situation has not been properly educated on inclusion settings and
lacks the proper attitude for an inclusion classroom to be successful. However, this is no
fault of hers. Inclusion programs have begun being implemented without any warning
and further education of the staff, so they are failing, and miserably at that. Peterson’s
example is not what an inclusion classroom is supposed to look like, but unfortunately, in
this adjustment period of special education, that is a reality.
Despite the discouraging example Peterson provides, there have been many
successful inclusion programs that have lead the way in this movement. Marci Hanson of
San Francisco State University focused her study on the culture and interactions that play
into those successful inclusion classrooms. Surprisingly, a successful program begins
with the parents “express[ing] a desire for their children to learn about differences among
Zagrodniczek, 7
people, and fe[el] that children would learn a lot from one another. Families of children
with disabilities saw inclusion as an opportunity for their children to have good role
models, and to learn to live in the "real world."” (199). All elements of a child’s life need
to come together in an inclusion program for it to work. The next step is better preparing
the teachers in these classrooms. Chien-Hui Yang, of Nanyang Technological
University, believes that “emphasis should be placed on the training of strategy
implementation across various curriculum contexts,” providing teachers with ways to not
only teach students at many different levels, but how to handle situations similar to
Peterson’s example (60). Emphasizing the inclusion attitude in the classes teachers take
in order to achieve their degree is where it needs to start. These classrooms can be very
positive places for all students, especially special education students. Halpern mentions
that she observed children without disabilities becoming role models and assisting the
children with ID when the teacher is not around. They almost become protective of the
students with ID and are motivated to help them, creating mutual friendships (193).
Positive classroom environments are a large contributing factor to a child’s happiness,
including the dynamic amongst the children in the classroom.
There are many elements that go into a successful inclusion school, more than it
seems on the surface. Why cant we just change our attitudes toward children with ID and
then everything will change? Because “in order to have an inclusive school, you have to
have teachers who have a mentality that is inclusive… We cannot demand that, have
rules to impose that… It’s group work, it’s a culture, it’s a philosophy, and it’s a policy”
(Kugelmass 286). It takes an entire school to convert to an inclusion program because it
not only involves the special education classrooms and teachers, but the general
Zagrodniczek, 8
education classrooms and teachers as well. Many school systems are resistant to the
change that is required for a successful inclusion program because the long-term benefits
are still uncertain. Students with disabilities are not separate from those without them, so
they should be afforded the same amount of positive change. However, despite
successful improvements in implementing inclusion programs, “exclusion and
segregation continues in public schools” (281). There have been schools that have
adopted the ideals of inclusion programs, but despite many successful years, segregation
still exists because of the attitudes our society has toward special education students.
This segregated attitude effects what a child with ID thinks about themself and how
successful these inclusion programs have the potential to become.
A person’s well-being comes down to two basic divisions: objective and
subjective well-being and, for a special education student, both of these translate into
what happens in the classroom. Paul Vos and his associates define these elements as “the
objective component of… [well-being] consisting of objective features, which can be
observed and measured in the public domain. The subjective component (also called
subjective well-being) holds the personal experiences of the [student]” (1623). Their
definition observes the important distinction of factors that are measurable and those that
are not. Measuring someone’s personal experience is impossible, but it is one of the
largest contributing factors to a person’s well-being. The well-being of the student is the
key element in developing effective inclusion programs for ID students. Inclusion
classrooms are centered around the idea that every child should feel as if they are a part
of a larger unit. The great amount of varying “values and beliefs, [that] comprise a
classroom culture that is inclusive… disability [just becomes] but one of many types”
Zagrodniczek, 9
(198). Each child experiences a coming together of many different backgrounds and
values in an inclusion classroom, so when a child with disabilities is placed into the
classroom, they do not necessarily stand out. It is important for children, with ID or not,
to be able to feel as if they are apart of something that will nurture and allow them to
achieve goals much past their potential.
However, not all agree that people with ID are less happy or have a lower sense of
well-being. Ramona Lucus-Carrasco, of the University of Barcelona, claims that people
with ID are no less happy than what is normally expected (1106). She does acknowledge
that there is a difference among people with and without ID, but they both fall in the
“normal” range of happiness, according to the Satisfaction with Life Scale (1103). The
lack of difference in happiness levels of people with and without ID was surprising,
however, when she went deeper into the ID community, her results revealed something.
According to her study, people with ID that lived in residential homes were happier than
those that lived in a community without assistance. Since education is the foundation of
planning for adult life, deciding what kind of community is best for the student with ID is
an important aspect in planning. Andrew Halpern of the University of Oregon, realized
that within the current special education cirriculum, there is a lack of programs that
prepare ID students for their futures after high school. With the passing of “the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (PL 101--476) [it is] …require[ed]
that individualized education plans (IEP's) must include transition planning for all
students with disabilities above the age of 16”(227). With the law recognizing that there
needs to be planning for the “real world,” referred to as transition planning, ID
classrooms are required to acknowledge a child’s future. However the current programs
Zagrodniczek, 10
may not be adequately preparing them. According to him, “enhancing selfdetermination, developing a full array of instructional programs, enhancing inclusive
instructional environments, and improving the array of community resources that are
available” will improve the ID student’s chances of having successful futures (226).
Inclusion programs aim to begin preparing students for what it is going to be like when
they grow up because these classrooms capture many different kinds of people at many
different learning levels. They emphasize the fact that everyone is different, but that is
something that makes our society better.
The special education program’s need for improvement was recognized all thanks
to the researchers who performed their various studies to see if the happiness of children
in these classes really was lower than the general population of students. However, it is
difficult to generalize many of their results because their methods of measuring how
happy these children are or how well the programs work, were very different. For
example, Marci Hanson, and Judy Kugelmass used extensive case studies and
observations of inclusion classrooms and the people in them to determine how well they
worked, while Lotta Uusitalo-Malmivaara, Paul Vos, and others like them used
questionnaires and surveys to determine the happiness of their pool of people. The
varying degrees to which the researchers came up with their results should be a caveat to
this paper.
In conclusion, whether it be a slight difference, or a large one, there is a
noticeable variance between the happiness levels of children with ID and those without.
This is due to many factors like their different learning environments, their ability levels,
the expectations required of them, and the societal attitude toward them. Inclusion
Zagrodniczek, 11
programs are currently being developed and refined in order to accommodate the created
differences among the two populations of students. Lawmakers strive to turn those two
populations into one, because that is what they really are at the core. Our society needs
to adjust their separatist views of people with ID because they deserve to have their needs
and education goals met just as any other child. If the inclusion programs are
implemented correctly, we will be raising, through the education system, more socially
accepting children.