Promoting Inclusion in Secondary Classrooms - Literature review Example

Inclusion The process of inclusion This educational approach is aimed at ensuring that with special needs get the same treatment and quality education with their counterparts. In this teaching model, students are not separated according to their disability status; hence, the students with special needs spend most or all of their time with the non-disabled students (Ryan, 2008). This process ensures that all the children have equal rights to participate in learning activities and the school is mandated to take the child and provide him with quality education without any form of discrimination. Smoot (2011) argues that this educational method discards the use of special schools and classrooms to distinct students with special needs, but demands that all are included in the same learning facilities at the same time. Inclusion ensures that students with special needs to acquire the same skills with the rest without any form of discrimination since the school is restructured in a manner that students learn together (Idol, 2006). Casale (2012) also recommended that students with special needs be provided with additional help and special instruction to enable them cope easily with the rest of the students. In the case where a special equipment that can disrupt the rest of the class is needed, then it should be done outside a regular classroom. In this system, a teacher is expected to educate students with special needs alongside students without special needs while maintaining appropriate support services whenever necessary. A teacher is also expected to eliminate special aggregates services that may not be necessary for inclusion purposes. History of inclusion In the past centuries, disability was always seen as s curse leading to alienation of people with disabilities. As a result, they were not provided with basic life services such as education and good health care. Whenever they attended learning institution, they were forced to attend separate schools due to the assumption that they could influence others. Today, it is common practice to see students with special needs receiving the same academic treatment alongside the rest of the students, courtesy of inclusion. The legal history of inclusion began when educators were seeking the best ways and means to increase the quality of education to persons with disabilities (King, 2003). With more studies and research, they came to realize that students with special needs can as well be incorporated with the rest ad still excel in their academics. In the United States, the debate on inclusion gained momentum under the leadership of John Kennedy, who agitated for social and economic equality. Prior to this, Congress had passed two crucial bills that facilitated loans to persons with disabilities and ensured that their teachers are trained according to their education demands (Mastopieri & Scruggs, 2001). President Kennedy was determined to ensure enforcement of law and the protection of civil rights, especially after the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka of 1954. This ruling enforced developments in law, politics, social policy and certainly in education to all American citizens regardless of their state. In the early 1960s, special education began its evolution, despite numerous challenges in the programs offered, students served and who should serve them. These legal developments promoted the moral of the advocacy groups together with professional bodies who were keen to ensure that such laws re followed to the latter. Kennedy interest in special education was facilitated by personal interest since sister was a victim of disability and this prompted him to appoint a panel on Mental Retardation. The panel later proposed a program that provided guidance to develop in education programs in special education that was quickly implemented by the government. Inclusion gained momentum around early 1990s when most schools started admitting children with disabilities and teaching them in separate classes. Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 guaranteed more access and equality to learning institutions by promoting and legalizing the idea of inclusion. The IDEA of 2004 helped to further reaffirm the earlier act by increasing access to learning opportunities for students with disabilities and requiring instructors to provide them with adequate attention (Idol, 2006). Relationship between inclusion, full inclusion, and mainstreaming Inclusion is an educational system that ensures that students with disabilities receive the same treatment with the rest of the students. On the other hand, full inclusion is the process whereby a student with special needs is allowed to participate in all subjects, activities, and an environment with the rest of the students by proper is taken by the instructor who gives him appropriate support and services. Full inclusion therefore demands for the elimination of any special treatment of students with disabilities as they learn with their counterparts. Mainstreaming is a process whereby a student with special needs attends general educational purposes for less hours and are avoided from attending all rigorous classes. A good example is whereby a student with special needs is exempted from attending physical education classes, but is allowed to attend other science related subjects together with mathematics. In this method, the student with special needs is exempted from attending a subject, activity, or environment that may not integrate well with his or her abilities. Key advocates of inclusion and their positions Gillies (2004) is one of the proponents of inclusion and he believes that it is morally beneficial and non-inclusion should not be tolerated since it lowers the social importance of students with disabilities. He asserts that maintaining social visibility in students is more important than academic achievement, and this can only be achieved through inclusion. Gullies also argue that society accords disabled people less dignity and this problem is likely to continue if non-inclusive educational models are encouraged. In addition, he explains that typical students are harmed by inclusion, but the harm they face is less compared to social harm in segregating and making people with special needs invisible in the society. Causton-Theoharis and Theoharis (2008) are other proponents of inclusion who believes that inclusion benefits the whole society as it enables all people feel respected and dignified regardless of their social state. This is because there are many young people who feel socially secluded but once they see disabled people amongst them, they feel encouraged and they start to view life positively. They argue that inclusion is beneficial in social improvement since it has been established that students with mental retardation who spend a considerable time with typical student show an increase in social skills with time. Causton-Theoharis and Theoharis (2008) also argue that typical students who went to school with students with disability develop responsive characters that enables them to become responsible people in the society. This is because they are aware of challenges that affect their counterparts and this makes them heighten their sensitivity to such challenges that in turn benefits the society through improved empathy, compassion, and leadership skills in graduates. Inclusion also benefits the society in the sense that students understand and comprehend the importance of working together by fostering a sense of unity as they tackle daily experiences and challenges of life (Gillies, 2004). He also adds that inclusion enables student develop positive attitudes that comes with improved communication skills and goals and increasing positive peer interaction. Key opponent of inclusion and his positions Just like the past, inclusion is still facing criticism in equal measure from administrators, educators, parents and some policy makers. The main argument of opponents of inclusion is that students with special needs require special attention and care, which may not be possible in typical classes. Gordon (2013) is a key opponent of inclusion and he argues that it is unfair and unjust to make a child with disability compete in the same environment and conditions with other typical students. He adds that that instructors in inclusive schools, especially where the population is bigger, always give less attention to special needs since they assume that all are equal. Gordon argues that most parents are not comfortable in taking their children to such schools for the fear that their children are likely to be ridiculed and looked down upon, a condition that may negatively affect their psychology. Gordon believes that inclusive education is too general, despite the fact that there are various special needs that require personalized and individualized educational requirements that are hardly availed in inclusive schools. A research that demonstrates the efficacy of inclusion as an educational process In her dissertation, Hawkins (2011) studies the effect of inclusion on the attainment of middle school students with slight and reasonable learning incapacities. She examined the impact of special education inclusion program and measured the outcomes bases on Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program to score the readings for mathematics and language subjects. She also used an independent sample test to measure the difference in the means of the scored results. In her findings, she indicates that inclusion had a significant positive impact both in language and mathematics subjects in students with both mild to moderate learning disabilities. She was thus able to affirm the argument that inclusion is beneficial for educational purposes and should be encouraged to achieve a just society. She concludes that the decisions have implications for social change since positive educational experiences for students with moderate disabilities increased their likelihood to graduate from high school and pursue higher education in their bid to better their lives (Hawkins, 2011). References Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2008). Creating inclusive schools for all students. School Administrator, 65 (8), 24-25 Casale, G.D. 2012. Comparing inclusion in secondary vocational and academic classrooms: Strengths, Needs, and Recommendations. American Secondary Education. Vol. 40 Issue 2, p26-42. Gillies, R.M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14 (2), 197-213. Gordon, J. (2013). Is Inclusive Education a Human Right? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Vol. 41 Issue 4, p754-76 Hawkins R.C. (2011). The Impact of Inclusion on the Achievement of Middle School Students with Mild to Moderate Learning Disabilities. Dissertation. Idol, L. (2006). Toward Inclusion of Special Education Students in General Education. Remedial & Special Education. Vol. 27 Issue 2, p77-94. King, I. C. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of learner centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42, 151-158. Mastopieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 24, 265-274. Ryan, D. (2008). An Analysis Tool for School Inclusion for Pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Child Care in Practice. Vol. 14 Issue 4, p371-380. Smoot, S. (2011). An Outcome Measure for Social Goals of Inclusion. Rural Special Education Quarterly. Vol. 30 Issue 1, p6-13. Read More