“All” is a strong word
All children, regardless of their social class, race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should have an equal opportunity to learn in school. But for years there has been debate over how children with special needs should be educated within the public school system. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), all American children have access to free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for the students’ specific learning needs. There have even been many pushes for full inclusion of these students within schools. Full inclusion is defined as a policy wherein “all students with disabilities, regard less of the nature or the severity of the disability and need for related services, receive their total education within the regular education classroom in their home school,” (LDA, 2012). While this seems great in theory, “all” is a strong word.
This language of “all” in regards to educating students is an over-generalization. Not all students with disabilities, whether major or minor, would truly benefit from receiving their full education in a “normal” classroom. “All” is a strong word. This word is the reason why The Learning Disabilities Association of America is actually not in favor of full inclusion or similar policies. All students with learning disabilities are not the same and should not be treated, instructed, or placed within schools as such.
“Requiring all disabled children to be included in mainstream classrooms, regardless of their ability to function there, is not only unrealistic but also downright harmful — often for the children themselves.”
Yes, many children with learning disabilities do benefit, especially socially, from being in a regular education classroom. However, the regular education classroom is not the appropriate setting for all students with learning disabilities, or even just the appropriate setting all the time. There are many other students that require alternative environments, teaching strategies, or materials, and special education is “on average more than twice as expensive as regular education…” (Hoschild, 137). These needs simply cannot always be met or possible in regular classrooms. There might be a need for teachers with special training or quieter and smaller classes and that is okay, too.
Separate education is clearly not the answer either, because it “sets up barriers among students and labels them; by definition it reduces diversity in the classroom and makes learning respect and mutual engagement more difficult,” (Hoschild, 137). We know there are many problems with students with special needs being totally separated from their peers. If those in special education programs do not have access to a full and challenging curriculum, this may allow them to graduate from high school, but prevents many from being eligible for college admissions if that is the path they would like to take. Also, a large part of school is learning how to effectively work with and interact with others. However, there are many ways to positive social connections and relationships with others.
Incorporation into the school culture and participating in activities within the school and amongst peers is a great thing that can be attained without requiring full inclusion for all students. The reality is, all cannot mean all when it comes to access to education in schools. I think it is really a matter of schools finding where students with special needs can be fully engaged and able to thrive because this is key in a classroom setting. In this case, opposing inclusion does not equal advocating exclusion. It is about finding an appropriate, working balance between full inclusion and full exclusion, because not all students are the same.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. B. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.
The Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2012). Full Inclusion of All Students with Learning Disabilities in the Regular Education Classroom. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://ldaamerica.org/advocacy/lda-position-papers/full-inclusion-of-all-students-with-learning-disabilities-in-the-regular-education-classroom/
Shanker, A. (1995, January). Full Inclusion Is Neither Free Nor Appropriate. Retrieved May 27, 2016, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec94/vol52/num04/Full-Inclusion-Is-Neither-Free-Nor-Appropriate.aspx
