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.