Inclusion Model for Special Education Students - Case Study Example

Inclusion Model for Special Education and Part Overview Introduction Knowledge is power. This is one of the most over-used sayings in the many and diverse fields, but where else would people get this power if not from education? Education plays a rudimentary role in the society, and plays an indispensable role through which a person gets enlightened, promoting both social and personal growth and development (Acar, 2011). The value of education cannot be understated, and this has been evidenced by the many efforts that the government has channeled towards ensuring that every person receives education. Many laws and acts have been passed to ensure that education remains undeniable to all people. However, whenever education is mentioned or discussed, very few minds switch their minds and think about education for the disabled, mentally and physically challenged people. The general notion that has been adopted by people is that education that mentions and discusses about physically challenged peoples should be a special issue, that it is only discussed under very unique circumstances (Dolam, 2008). However, this should not be the case. With the civilization and revolution that has taken place in the society, education for the physically challenged has become an issue that can be discussed openly, and the physically challenged individuals have even been incorporated in the “regular” education system (Soan, 2013). Inclusion therefore, is not a place, but a service for students who are physically and mentally challenged. Proponents and critics have said and written much concerning inclusion, but what they all seem to concur on is the fact that inclusion is pertinent for a developing society where the needs of all people are considered. The inclusion program is the practice that accommodates a disabled child to unconditionally belong and fit into a classroom where typical students without disabilities study (Lindsay, 2007). This is unlike the common misconception that the inclusion program should be in a special school in a special or particular community. Some of the students who fall under this category (of disabilities) as Dolam (2008) notes include those suffering from autism, orthopedic impairments, sight and hearing disabilities, intellectual challenges among others. The Special Education needs and Disability Act of 2001, Disability Discrimination Act and the Education Act of 1996 are some of the acts in U.K that have been passed to ensure that these students are not discriminated against (Soan, 2013). Proponents argue that one of the reasons as to why the inclusion model was and is included in the school curriculum is because education is a fundamental human right. All children are entitled to a good and non discriminatory education, even to those who are disabled, and are perceived to be lesser individuals in the society. Inclusion is therefore a fulfillment of the human rights that even the disabled and physically challenged are entitled to (Bunch and Valeo, 2004). The budding impetus of an inclusive education necessitates a clear understanding of the model. History and background of inclusion Statistics reveal that over 800,000 children in the U.K suffer from disability and impairment related cases (Soan, 2013). This number is momentous, and it therefore demands that steps and measures be taken to ensure that all these children have access to education, just like those children who do not suffer from disabilities. In the early years, inclusion for students with disabilities was done in a different way from today. The students with special educational needs were treated differently from their typical peers. This was evidenced by the fact that the students were taught in a different classroom, where all the students in need were those with special needs or disabilities (Hornby and Kidd, 2001; Croll and Moses, 2000). Apart from the isolation, they had a “special” teacher, and each teacher was in charge of one classroom. Try to picture a situation where all the students are disabled and these disabilities vary, and all these students are under one teacher, in one classroom. That was what it was like before the modern day inclusion materialized. The teachers had a hard time, and most of them found it hard to deal with the students. It calls for a lot of patience and tolerance to manage such a class. Another characteristic is that inclusive education in the past was primarily focused on the students who were disabled physically and had learning disabilities (Rheams and Bains, 2005). This is different to the modern day where the inclusion program extends even to those students who are at risk of marginalization and separation due to many reasons. Inclusion in the past was also not inclusion as we know it today; it was in the form of mainstream (Hornby and Kidd, 2001). This means that the students were sometimes allowed to be learn together with their fit and non-disabled peers. At such times, they would only join their peers during a particular or selected lesson, or during a specified time of the day. Thus was meant to encourage the disabled children to feel that they are not being discriminated, and also for the students without disabilities to learn on how to interact with the disabled students. This was not so successful, but it was better than wholly separating the disabled children, restricting them from mingling or even playing with their normal friends. However, one cannot fail to commend the fact that the society and the government had put in efforts in the past, and though the inclusive education was not so fruitful, there was a change from the time where disability was not discussed, and disabled children were disregarded and viewed as a source of disgrace and shame (Fitch, 2003). The main reason as to why segregation of the disabled children was carried out in the past is because they were deemed to be incapable of benefiting or gaining from the regular methods of teaching and instructed that were practiced. The medical model and the psychometrics model promoted the segregation of students with disabilities (Hornby, 2012). The two models propagated the belief that the barriers to erudition in a disabled child lay within the child. An illustration of the model is represented in Figure 1 below. It was argued that this segregated integration was effectual in catering for the needs of the disabled child while safeguarding the proficient knowledge acquisition of the majority (those who dot suffer from disability). Figure 1: The medical model Inclusion today Inclusion has largely and briskly been campaigned for by the proponents of education, and presently, the situation has changed from what it was in the past. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the word wide civil movement and human right activists questioned the parallel provision of education (Hornby and Kidd, 2001). They argued that it was unethical and inhumane to separate students, and to place them in different classrooms in a different environment under a different teacher due to their disability. They, together with the disabled and the handicapped challenged the stigma and the limiting nature of the segregated education. from this period, need for equal education and eradication of discrimination gained impetus, and thus inclusion became pertinent for the society and the disabled student also became the business of the government to ensure that their needs were addressed (Dolam, 2008). Currently, many schools embrace inclusion and integrate it into their curriculum. Inclusion is no longer an issue that is left to the school and the teachers, but everybody in the society becomes involved. As earlier mentioned, today, education is not limited to the disabled and the handicapped but also encompasses all who are in danger of marginalization (Soan, 2013). Inclusion ensures that the handicapped people get involved in the same activities as their typical healthy peers, so long as one is able to. It also ensures that the resources accessed by the normal children are also accessible to the disabled and handicapped students (Acar, 2011). As a result, more disabled children all over the world, (U.K in particular) attend the same classes with their typical peers, hence reducing discrimination. In addition, the disabled children are able to acquire skills that they use to get through in life. Furthermore, those students who do not suffer from disabilities learn to relate with their disabled peers, which, as Hornby (2012) notes is important in building a more harmonious society. Strategies applied today One might ask themselves how it is possible to achieve the above discussed level of inclusion. It doesn’t come easy, as Kalyva, Gojkovic and Tsakiris (2007) collectively warn. Teachers, parents and the general society have all learnt to work as a team to ensure that the disabled children are not discriminated against. However, since the inclusion happens in schools, the teachers are the ones who play the bigger role. Different strategies are therefore applied to enhance inclusive education. To begin with, partial or full inclusion might be adopted. In partial inclusion, also referred to as Push In inclusion, the children with disabilities are placed in the same class with those who do not suffer from disability. A teacher enters the classroom and only supports the disabled children when need be. They may work with the challenged children by providing materials, and also support the general teacher when need be (Hornby and Kidd, 2001). On the other hand, full inclusion is where the teacher acts as all time partner, and is responsible for every student. The students may have their own Individualized Education Program (IEP), but this does not mean that the teacher is not involved (Croll and Moses, 2000). One method through which full inclusion becomes successful is through differentiated instruction. The teacher is always in charge of the records of all the students in the class which comprises of both students with educational needs and those without (Parsons andDodmans, 2013). Another strategy for promoting inclusion is through developing games and sports that bring together both sets of the children. They can also be involved in problem solving situations where the disabled child is teamed up with a student with no disability. Some schools promote inclusion by encouraging students to imitate the role of the teacher, issue instructions to the other students or even guide them in comprehension reading (Shapiro and Leopold, 2012). The teachers however must ensure that all students are given a chance to avoid discrimination. The teachers also develop activities that demand the use of physical therapy equipments such as wheel chairs. The students and the teachers are therefore able to work together and the disabled children feel appreciated by the society. The above are just a few of the many strategies adopted and applied by schools to address the issue of inclusion. Conclusion Our society has really changed, and the inclusion model for special education students is an evidence of the change. It is heartening to see that many people realize and appreciate the fact that we can all play a role in accommodating each other, even with our massive differences. Upon my graduation, I hope that I will get employed as a special education trainer. All through, I have always had a growing admiration for people who have brought change in the society. This position would not only help me fulfill my desire to change the society but also give me a chance to address people on the importance of inclusion. There are many learning institutions, even those of higher learning that have not adopted inclusive education, yet this program is essential in developing our societies (Acar, 2011). Educating others about it is therefore pertinent, and this position will give me the necessary exposure. I shall also be able to relate with the disabled children and in this position, I shall find a unique angle form which I will bring change to the society. Part 2 Project simulation and action plan In one of the public schools in London, a new principal had just been posted. She had moved from a school where inclusion had been newly introduced, and thus she had not known most of the details involved in incorporation of inclusive model in the school curriculum. In this new school where she had been posted, inclusion had not been incorporated in the school curriculum. The students who were physically challenged and had special education needs were taught in a class separate from the other students who are not challenged. They were not allowed to mingle with their peers or to engage in the many activities that their normal peers engaged in. The disabled students, before the inclusion, had teachers who were assigned to them, and they were wholly responsible for their records. The principal, having witnessed inclusive education in her previous school decided to introduce it here. She instructed the teachers to move the disabled students and have them incorporated into the classrooms that hosted the students who did not suffer from physical disabilities. When asked why, she did not have an apt explanation to give to the teachers who handled the handicapped students or to those teachers who handled the general classes. The result of this inclusion was not as effective as would have been expected in other schools that have adopted inclusion. The students who did not suffer from disabilities did not understand why they were integrated with those who were physically challenged (understandable as suggested by Bunch and Valeo, 2004). As a result, they reported this to their parents who streamed in the school demanding fro explanations. Some of the students were violent and there were a lot of arguments and disagreements within the two groups. Fights were reported where several students injured each other. This further angered parents who threatened to have their children transferred to better and peaceful schools where their children would not suffer the harassments from “abnormal people”. The disabled children who had been integrated into the general classrooms demanded a lot of attention, and this wore out the teachers, especially those who had not interacted with them before. In the playground, things were not any better. There were fights and quarrellings as the normal students did not want to incorporate the disabled during into their games and sports. The normal students saw the disabled students as undeserving to be in the same classrooms with them, (a common thing as Bunch and Valeo, 2004 note). The teachers reported the discomfort that the normal students registered and the frustrations that they themselves experienced. The principal told the teachers that they had to exact their authority on the students and that they had to monitor them during their play time. She tried to talk to them about partial inclusion and full inclusion, but since she did not have furnished details about this, things did not improve. When push came to shove, two of the teachers submitted their resignation letters claiming that the pressure was too much. Several parents came on the same Monday morning and asked for a letter granting them permission to transfer their students to better schools. The principal had to recall her decision to integrate the students and hence, the disabled students went back to their old classrooms near the boiler room. The teachers said that their classrooms were located here since they caused minimal distractions and interact less with the normal students. Action plan Much can be learnt from the above issue. Soan, (2013) concludes that inclusive education is a noble action aimed at fostering equality and mitigating the effects of discrimination in our society. This action plan is designed to inform on what the principal did not do (or did) to ensure effectiveness in inclusive education. This case is a representation of many other schools where inclusion incorporation in the curriculum has failed. This action plan, therefore, points out the errors and omissions that were made by the principal and hence acts as a guide to any school that is yet to integrate their classrooms. To begin with, research is paramount for the success of inclusive education (Hornby, 2012). The principal should have carried out sufficient research so as to have a background on how inclusion works. Information on the same can be accessed online, but the best means to learn about inclusion, as Fitch (2003) advises is to visit a school that has had successful inclusion. One will learn the challenges, the steps, the strategies and any other relevant information. The case serves to remind us that inclusion is not a place, it is a service, and it is a program, which is aimed at addressing challenges and barriers to knowledge acquisition and resources access. Secondly, inclusive education is not a decision that the principal makes alone. Involving the teachers, the administrators and the parent representatives is paramount to a successful inclusive education (Kalyva, Gojkovic and Tsakiris, 2007). This ensures that different views and opinions are forwarded and deliberated upon, and the decision that has the common good shall be adopted. Parents need to feel secure when they send their children to school. They need the assurance that the quality of their children’s education shall not be compromised due to the inclusion (Rheams and Bain, 2005). All these people are major stakeholders and their decisions and views are very important. The value of the teacher should not be undermined. The teacher is the one responsible for ensuring that a child gets quality education and learns basic skills in life. The principal, therefore, should have explained to the teachers the dire need for inclusion, and also given them a chance to suggest on how the classes should be run. The teachers who were earlier used to teaching general classrooms had a hard time (hence they almost quit). They should have been made aware of the challenges and the overwhelming responsibilities. It is also important that an inclusive education trainer be called in to orient the teachers and the children. Being a new program in the school, the students did not understand why the sudden change had occurred. A special education trainer would have mitigated the consequences that emanated from the un-consulted decision that had been made by the principal (Fitch 2003). One should also appreciate that inclusion not only takes place in the classroom. It also takes place in the fields, in singing lessons, in resource allocations, in the music room among others. It therefore means that the teacher should be with the students in the playground, especially if the program is newly introduced. This assistance in the field is important as it helps the normal children to appreciate the disabled children, and they gradually learn to relate peacefully. Songs and dances that bring the community together and in so doing, the disabled children will have a chance to develop their skills and even know that they are part of the society. Another important thing to note while introducing inclusion in school is the distinction between push –in inclusion and full inclusion. Some schools, as Lindsay (2007) notes, adopt both categories but the two work differently under different circumstances. To resolve the above issue, all the principals and teachers in schools where inclusive education has not yet been adopted should be carefully taught on the need for the program, the steps taken in adopting the programs and the strategies applied to make inclusion work (Hornby, 2012). This will guarantee that cases such as the one discussed above do not reoccur. In addition, a center for training special education trainers in the division should be established. This will further increase the chances of success in inclusive education as teachers and trainers can share their different ideas and together, discrimination against the disabled shall be a thing of the past. In conclusion, Soan (2013) suggests that parents, teachers, administrators and children who do not suffer from disabilities should be reminded that inclusion is beneficial to everyone, either directly or indirectly. When students with varying disabilities spend time with their peers, they portray significant growth in self esteem, social relationships and academic adeptness. The students feel like one family with many differences, yet united by a common purpose, education. By denying visibility to the disabled students, the society directly denies them their dignity, hence social inclusion should be adopted wherever it has not. References Acar, E. (2011). Identifying the Purpose of Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and special education schools. Disability & Society, 19(1), 61-76 Croll, R., & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and Utopias: Education professionals views of inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15 (1), 1-12. Dolam, T. (2008). Minority students and college success: Challenges and solutions. Education Digest, 73(7), 27-30. Fitch, F. (2003). Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students changing sense of self. The Urban Review, 35(3), 233-252. Hornby, G.(2012). Inclusive education for children with special education needs: A critique of policy and practice in New Zealand. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 1(1), 52-62. Hornby, G., & Kidd, R.(2001). Transfer from special to mainstream- Ten years later. British Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 10-17. Kalyva, E., Gojkovic, D., & Tsakiris, V. (2007). Serbian teachers attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), 30-35. Lindsay, G. (2007). Education psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive educational mainstreaming. British Journal Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1-24. Parsons, S., & Dodmans, C. (2013). Broadening the View of Differentiated Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan. 95(1), 38-42. Rheams, T., & Bain, S. (2005). Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era: Attitudes of teachers in early childhood self contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 53-63. Shapiro, S., & Leopold, L. (2012). A critical role for role playing. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), pp. 265-284. Soan, S. (2013). Additional Educational Needs: Inclusive Approaches to Teaching. London: Routledge. Read More