Grad

Inclusion/”Full” Inclusion Defined

Inclusive schooling is a system that serves all students adequately in regular classrooms, with the required support services. Full inclusion refers to the practice of having regular teachers teach both regular education students and special education students together, without the assistance of special education teacher (Peltier, 1997). However, some see the difference between inclusion and full inclusion as simply a difference in number: full inclusion means some children; full inclusion means all children (Smelter and Rasch, 1994). The idea of inclusion is that all children, including those with disabilities, should and can learn in a regular classroom. In education inclusion can elicit attitudes of frustration, confusion, apathy, and anger. Teachers and parents have very strong opinions about the appropriateness of inclusion in today’s classroom. In addition, not all teachers agree on its benefits, problems, and effects; not do the parents. The concept of including all children of all learning abilities seems to be the righteous way to provide a free, appropriate education to everyone. Not everyone, however, is completely satisfied. Opinions are strong both in favor of and against inclusion.

The Law

In 1975 Public Law 94-142 was enacted by the federal legislature. This law, now called the individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), assured the right of all children to a public school education. The law incorporated certain convictions: (1) a free appropriate public education, (2) and individualized education program, (3) special education services, (4) related services, and (5) the least restrictive environment in which to learn (Shipley 1995). The IDEA does not use the term “inclusion,” however, it states, free appropriate education in the “least restrictive environment” with all accommodations necessary for the student to benefit from the education. Several teachers feel that the words “least restrictive environment” allow for leverage when placing a child. For some children, the least restrictive environment is the regular classroom. If a child’s needs are successfully met in a “regular” classroom, then the child should be placed in that room. A child who needs more support and only finds support in a smaller environment should also be placed accordingly. Further, the United States Department of Education has stated that a student’s placement in a regular education classroom is the first option that an IEP team must consider (Shipley 1995). IDEA requires that public schools provide highly specialized education “designed to meet the unique needs” of handicapped children (Biklen 1995). That is precisely what full inclusion fails to do.

Advantages

Advocates of inclusion state that their studies indicate that children with disabilities (including those who are severely impaired) who are place in a general education setting show better social development, become more independent, have greater success in meeting their IEP goals, and have enhanced skills acquisition (Peltier, 1997). The idea of placing all students in a regular class setting helps lose the image of being different or secluded from everyone else. Students who are put in special classes may fell as though they do not belong (Martin 1992). Inclusion gives both the special needs and regular education students the opportunity to interact in a more natural and realistic setting. Inclusion is a way to change attitudes about students with disabilities, to promote teamwork among teachers and staff, and to develop interpersonal skills among diverse groups of students.

Disadvantages

Proponents of inclusion have conducted studies and have concluded that inclusion is not beneficial for all students. For example, some researcher believe that a child with mental retardation can demonstrate higher academic achievement in a general education class, whereas, children with emotional or behavioral disorders tend to do better in special education classes. The American Federation of Teachers is one organization who supports the idea that full inclusion is not for everyone (Shipley 1995). They explain that some children who are medically fragile or have severe behavioral disorders are more likely to be harmed than helped when laced in a regular education classroom, where teachers don’t have the experience to address the children’s needs. Furthermore, when a child demands so much of the teachers’ attention, the learning of all the other children in the class is sacrificed. While the idealized concept of inclusive schools seems to mirror the fundamental democratic principles of the United States, putting inclusion into successful practice poses a significant