Bard Samantha Bard 7019 ENG 411 Prof. Pamela Hollis 02/10/12

advertisement
Bard 1
Samantha Bard 7019
ENG 411
Prof. Pamela Hollis
02/10/12
The Success and Failure of Inclusion Classrooms
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind act was signed into law. Among many other reforms,
this act required that American public schools incorporate students in special education and
students with learning difficulties into general education classrooms. Teachers now educate
these students alongside learners without disabilities, differentiating their instruction to suit the
needs of each person. Research has shown these inclusion classrooms are beneficial in a myriad
of ways to non-disabled students, educators, and the students with disabilities themselves.
Higher test scores, greater respect and understanding for people who live with disabilities, and
more positive attitudes towards learning are only some of the reported results of mainstreaming,
the inclusion of special education students into general education settings. Still, however
advantageous it may seem on the surface, the issue of inclusion is not without its dissidents.
Because mainstreaming programs require a vast amount of professional support and teacher
training, they are highly impractical for low income schools that simply don’t have access to
resources of that caliber. When inclusion is required in these types of schools, it is detrimental
for both students and teachers. Additionally, classrooms with packed schedules leave little time
for teachers to meet the individual needs of students from such different places on the learning
spectrum.
For these reasons the inclusion of students with disabilities, learning and otherwise, into
general education classrooms has been a hotly debated topic for years. Failure to implement
Bard 2
inclusion could perpetuate an attitude of bias and segregation towards those who differ from the
norm in our schools and our culture. Conversely, requiring mainstreaming of schools and
teachers who are not prepared to execute it well may cause more harm than good for both
disabled and non-disabled students. It is the responsibility of legislators, school administrators,
teachers, parents, and the general populace alike to consider this significant issue.
Spencer Salend and Laurel Duhaney synthesize a large amount of research regarding
inclusion classrooms in their article, “The Impact of Inclusion on Students With and Without
Disabilities and Their Educators.” Both employed at The State University of New York at New
Paltz, Salend and Duhaney (a professor and a dean respectively) have published several journal
articles together on the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education,
inclusion, ADD and other learning disorders (Corwin, State). This particular article serves to
demonstrate the general benefit gleaned by students with disabilities, their non-disabled peers,
and teachers when lower level learners are incorporated into general education classrooms.
Salend and Duhaney begin by explaining that the inclusion movement is based in the idea that
schools should meet the needs of all students equally and should teach respect and “learning
from each other’s differences” (Salend and Duhaney 114). Their synthesis of the research
supports the claim that inclusion classrooms can fulfill this ideal.
To begin with, “The Impact of Inclusion” discusses the effects of mainstreaming on the
disabled students themselves. Research suggests that these learners benefited academically and
socially when placed in general education classrooms. In one study, inclusion students with
disabilities were shown to earn higher grades and have more positive attitudes towards school
(Salend and Duhaney 115). In another, students who spent part of their day in a general
education classroom and part in a special education classroom experienced greater gains in
Bard 3
reading performance than students who spent their whole day in one or the other. Some studies
revealed that even non-disabled students benefited from being part of an inclusion classroom,
especially socially. These students reported “richer friendships” with non-disabled students than
learners from self-contained classrooms (Salend and Duhaney 119). Some studies indicated that
academic performance increased among non-disabled students from inclusion classrooms, but
most suggested that it made no significant difference. Students without disabilities also revealed
that they were more understanding and accepting of differences as a result of having been in an
inclusion classroom.
While the benefits for students seem overwhelming, the authors of “The Impact of
Inclusion” concede that, in general, teachers have doubts about mainstreaming. Many general
educators expressed concern regarding their own ability to teach a disabled student correctly.
However, the article suggests that, with the right leadership, peer collaboration, and sufficient
teacher training, teachers who were originally apprehensive about inclusion programs felt more
adept and prepared to handle inclusion. According to Salend and Duhaney, there are minor
disadvantages to inclusion but the benefits for teachers, non-disabled students, and students with
disabilities far outweigh them.
There are, of course, professionals who would suggest otherwise. Nancy Mamlin, a
professor of special education at North Carolina Central University and author of several journal
articles on inclusion, special education, and students with ADHD and hearing disabilities, is one
such professional (North). Her article, “Despite Best Intentions: When Inclusion Fails” serves to
demonstrate the ways in which inclusion can fall short. Mamlin’s qualitative study was
conducted through observation and interviews within Watkins Elementary School, an urban
school in a Mid-Atlantic state. Watkins was located in an extremely low-income area, performed
Bard 4
poorly on standardized tests, and suffered from low attendance. In order to increase participation
in an improvement campaign, driven by state-mandated tests and standards, the administration
set out to reform the special education program at Watkins. This plan included giving special
education students individual schedules to place them in general education classes and assigning
special education teachers five classes a day, grouped by ability level. Additionally, several new
staff members were hired and several teacher in-service days were scheduled to assist the special
education department in this venture. Despite these good intentions and lots of time spent
planning the implementation of inclusion, only two special education students actually took a
general education class. Mamlin indicates several possible reasons for Watkins’ failure to
successfully implement inclusion: the existence of a “culture of segregation,” the absence of
strong leadership, and the lack of collaboration among teachers (Mamlin 45). Overall, this
school was not supported in ways that make inclusion possible, “administrator preparation” and
“professional input” (Mamlin 31). Throughout the article, Mamlin reveals her professional
opinion that, having witnessed successful mainstreaming in different settings throughout her life,
inclusion is generally a beneficial endeavor. However, after observing the problems at Watkins,
she acknowledged not all schools have the resources or cultural atmosphere to implement it.
The authors of “Implications of Inclusion” and “When Inclusion Fails” agree that, in
ideal situations, inclusion greatly benefits both disabled and non-disabled students. However,
based on observation and data, Mamlin suggests that there are schools and teachers who are
simply not ready to implement it successfully. This issue is significant because it affects our
children, our schools, and in turn, our culture. Inclusion is necessary because, if the segregation
of special needs and disabled students within public schools continues, two things will happen.
Firstly, our children will be prevented from reaping the benefits of exposure to people of
Bard 5
different backgrounds, hardships and experiences. Secondly, an attitude of separation and
stratification will percolate through our society and tolerance and respect for differences will fail
to develop. Furthermore, when it has been shown that learning increases so significantly for
inclusion students with disabilities, it would be unethical and prejudiced to withhold from them
this higher-quality education.
Although there are many social and academic advantages to inclusion programs, they
can also be detrimental to students, teachers, and entire schools, as was seen in Watkins
Elementary School. If mainstreaming is forced upon schools that are not ready for it, students
with disabilities will be reduced to guinea pigs and be caught in the midst of an administration
nightmare, losing weeks and months of valuable learning as a result. The necessary steps to
ensure successful inclusion, such as leadership preparation and extensive training for general
education teachers, are expensive and time consuming. Many schools simply cannot manage it.
Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to implement inclusion and to
administer standardized tests to every single one of its students. Based on the scores of these
tests, the school is either supplied with more government funding when the scores are high or
relieved of funding when the scores are low. For inclusion programs in low-income schools, this
is a guarantee for failure. These schools do not have the resources to properly train their teachers
to educate learners with disabilities in the first place and, as a result, they do not receive high
scores on standardized tests. Then, funding is taken away and the school is even less equipped to
continue their journey toward inclusion.
The issue of inclusion is not black and white. The benefits, both social and scholastic, of
including special education students in general education classrooms are remarkable. In fact,
mainstreaming has been required by law since No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002. Still,
Bard 6
there is significant data to support the conclusion that inclusion does more harm than good in
environments with limited resources. Without strong leadership and the necessary training to
effectively teach students with disabilities, schools cannot employ inclusion in a way that is
beneficial. The implications of this topic are far-reaching and significant, effecting students’
educations today and their culture tomorrow. Even though the issue is a messy one, careful
consideration of the successes and failures of inclusion can and will lead to a solution for the
future.
Bard 7
Works Cited
Corwin: A SAGE Company. Authors: Spencer J. Salend, 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Mamlin, Nancy. "Despite Best Intentions: When Inclusion Fails." Journal of Special
Education (Spring 1999): 36-49. ProQuest. Web.
North Carolina Central University. Online Campus Directory: Nancy Mamlin, 2012. Web. 09
Feb. 2012.
Salend, Spencer J., and Laurel M. Garrick Duhaney. "The Impact of Inclusion on Students With
and Without Disabilities and Their Educators." Remedial and Special Education 2.20
(Mar/Apr 1999): 114-24. ProQuest. Web.
State University of New York at New Paltz. Office of Communication and Marketing, 2010.
Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Download