Inclusive Classrooms - Literature review Example

Running Head: Inclusive Classrooms Inclusive Classrooms [Name of the Writer] [Name of the Institution] Inclusive Classrooms The classrooms where individuals with disabilities receive their education, in general, atypical settings are called inclusive class rooms. (Soodak, 2003) and Cole, 1999). In comparison, Education Queensland's (2004) cs-15 Principles of Inclusive Policy document describes Inclusive curriculum as the development of knowledge, skills, attitudes and processes necessary to question how disadvantages have developed within current social structures, and to challenge rather than accept social injustice, and empower people to participate as equals. Are Inclusive education practices the most effective medium to challenge social injustices and empower people to participate as equal? The pros and cons of Inclusive education policies are assessed by two components. The first component is the assessing Norlander (1995) historical assessment and influence of American Inclusion policy development on Australian Inclusive education practices. The second component is the examination of the macro components of Inclusive education practice as established by Cole (1999). Norlander (1995) defines the first development towards Inclusive Education as the Institutionalization and School segregation mid 1970s. Institutionalization was the process in which the first teaching of individuals with special needs occurred established by the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC). The second development he describes as the deinstutionalization of Schooling and the development of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) creating nationalized equal educational opportunities for all individuals with disabilities. The third development is described as the era of Community Integration, where special needs individuals were integrated into the community depending on ability. Evidence of this was legally formulated by the creation of the Americans with disabilities Act (1986). Historically, these three developments in the treatment and education of individuals with special needs in America lead to basis of current Australian Inclusion education policies. The effectiveness of current policies is assessed by the influences of macro and micro environmental characteristics. On the macro level, Cole (1999) describes four arguments for and against inclusion, the Consequentiality, Justice, Needs and Rights arguments. The Consequentiality argument is based on the cost-benefit analysis and the Unitarian approach. This defined by Cole as a process where education policies are assessed on aggregate maximum benefit for the majority of persons involved in education. Consequentiality theorists for Inclusion propose that the philosophy and practice of inclusion promotes increases in student learning, less dependency on the government on resources for regular school education, and propose that individuals against inclusive education policies are lessening the provision of quality education. Individuals opposing the theory of Consequentialism believe the success of Inclusive education practices are heavily dependent on education budget surpluses, which when non-existent, lead to the deprivation of education quality, position and places (Cole, 1999). Similarly, Hunt, Soto, Maier, and Doering (2003) support this reasoning. They argue that termination of Inclusion policies such as separate facilities leads to no increase in resources for regular classes and no resultant benefits to students with disabilities. The second macro environment component is the influence and application of the concept of Justice. Cole (1999) suggests the application of Justice in education is based on equality, and equity of the distribution of education goods and services. Bracken and Samprecht (2003) propose the Justice modal of thinking promotes the application of common education principles. They suggest that it signifies standardized access for all students by the creation of policies with greater flexibility for individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, Bracken and Samprecht suggests it provides a more continuance-focused support for the inclusion of students with more severe forms of disability. Conversely, Hunt, and Doering (2003), and Cole (1999) have strong arguments against the application of Justice in the provision of education services. They argue that in most instances equal educational provision and treatment is not in the best interests of all students with disabilities and more specifically they suggest that much of regular education is differentiated by ability level and that inclusion. Hunt and Doering's and Cole's general consensus was that atypical inclusive education in practice under-sells individuals with disabilities and Justice does not entail that the same education should occur for the disabled as for regular class students. Analysis of parents, students, and teachers experiences and opinions of Inclusive education practices verify the complexities established by the macro environmental factors of the arguments for and against inclusion. Palmer and Nelson (2001) classify these views and philosophies of parents into five common areas: (1) Lack of specialist attention, and insufficient focus on meeting needs within mainstream curriculums; (2) Concerns over the development of special needs children sense of belonging, (3) Concerns over the servicing of academic and social skill development needs, (4) Difficulties of awareness and support for their child's specific disability and expressed concerns for the lack of specialist trained teachers and mainstream teachers capacity, and (5) Parents without individuals disabilities expressed concerns that inclusion policies may effect quality of service. The last two issues will be discussed. Soodak (2003) describes Inclusive education practices as processes that create a sense of community and membership in the classroom. Palmer and Nelson (2001) investigated 140 written comments of parents of children with severe disabilities from four American counties. Results formulated by an investigative survey and an applied Likert scale revealed positives and negatives for Inclusive education practices. They found that students would learn more due to the higher expectations placed on the students with disabilities and would develop greater social skills. Nelson explored statements by parents: STATEMENTS' REFLECTING REASONS PARENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF INCLUSION a.         Improvement in the included child's academic or functional skills due to higher expectations or more stimulation Parent's response: It is my strong opinion CHILD A is not progressing in a special education classroom because he is not challenged enough. I believe he regresses due to the fact that children in his class are considerably more handicapped when compared to CHILD A. Soodak's and Palmer, Fullter, Arora, and Nelson's views are reinforced by the assessment by Vaughn, and Linan-Thompson's (2003) who found that parents, with the support of educators believed that separating children with disabilities from other children led to inferior education and in particular part-time mainstreaming with less than favorable outcomes. Contrary to Soodak (2003) and Vaughn and Linan-Thompsons (2003) analysis, Hunt and Doering (2003) suggest that many parents feel that Inclusive education practices affect their children's chances of receiving the required attention and specialization that their disability requires. Palmer and Nelson's (2001) study revealed only 13% of parents believed inclusion education was appropriate. Parents revealed concerns for medical needs, sensory impairments, lack of self-help skills, and the presence of specific conditions as the reasons why inclusive practices were not appropriate. For example: STATEMENTS REFLECTING REASONS PARENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF INCLUSION a.         Beliefs that the Type of Severity of the Child's Disability precludes benefit from Inclusion i.         My child is severely handicapped. She is hydrocephalic, microcephalic, and has bilateral ventro-peritonreal shunts. I don't believe my daughter would benefit by being mainstreamed in a regular classroom. Palmer and Nelson's (2001) study also revealed that parents believed inclusion would negatively impact due to time and capacity of mainstream teachers. For example:          ii.         Regular classrooms are so over-book with students already that they are struggling to learn, that neither the student, nor the teacher needs the additional problems of the diversion of a severely disabled child. This is reinforced by Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003) who propose that many parents view the placement of their children into mainstream education classes places extra burdens on teachers. It was expressed that specialist teachers were trained to deal with the proper instructions, materials and skills to deal with individuals with disabilities. The allocation of resources, time and delivery of teaching material and the capacity to teach combined classes of individuals with and without disabilities was investigated by Soodak (2003) and Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003). They suggest that mainstream children benefit from social awareness and diversity, and key life learning issues such as learning support processes, and gaining an understanding of adaptative technologies. On the contrary, the parents of students without disabilities expressed concerns. For example, Palmer and Nelson (2001) suggest many of the parents of students without disabilities believed the teacher's ability would be impaired to the point where the development of their child would suffer or not develop to its fullest potential. Do inclusion education policies place restrictions on teacher's ability to develop the potential of all students? Investigations by Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000), and Hunt and Doering (2003) suggest six key areas influence teacher's perceptions of inclusive education policies. These influencing factors include curriculum issues, the specific nature of the disability, contextual factors (funding, political environment, resources, classroom and time table management), and teacher's professional development. Wright (1999) and Pivik and LaFlamme (2002) investigated the contextual factor of resource allocation and found teachers are often faced with substantial changes in the structure of the classroom with the inclusion of children with disabilities. In comparison, investigations into the allocation of resources and inclusive education practices by Stodden, Galloway and Stodden (2003) suggests there is little evidence as to whether existing resource reallocation can be used to provide educational resources which can provide educational personnel with opportunities to plan and work collaboratively in order to support all students' learning, including those at risk and those with special needs. Soodak (2003) disagree. They suggest collaborative teaching provides efficient opportunities for accessing resources needed for inclusive education practices. They go further and suggest it enables teachers to develop planning and reflection time, and opportunities to collaborate in decision-making about placement, instruction and other related services to both individuals with disabilities and individuals without disabilities. Levels of education and professional development for facilitators are also factors influencing teacher's perceptions and attitudes towards the development and application of Inclusive education practices. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden (2000) adopted a three-component model of attitudes towards inclusive education practices. They presented a survey to 48 secondary and primary teachers and found relationship of Inclusion policy adaptation and teachers level of professional development. Where greater levels of training, and higher University achievement correlated higher with Teachers being better able to meet special education goals, feeling more confident in teaching both students with and without disabilities and possessed more favorable attitudes towards inclusive education polices. Alternatively, Pr (2003) investigated 408 elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion and teachers levels of training and experience and found a stronger relationship between teacher experience and favorable attitudes towards inclusive education practices. The current synopsis of Inclusive education policy identifies a core number of arguments for and against inclusion. Key macro legal, political and social factors effecting Inclusion policies identified investigated the difficulties in establishing the desired change in the education of individuals. Cole (1999) and Hunt and Doering's (2003) maintained two views. The Consequentialist view which centered on the relationship of funding allocation and efficiency, and the Justice view concerning resource allocation and equality in the provision of education. Although critics suggest these views are unattainable, Thorley, Hotchkis, and Martian (1995) believe a more intrinsic, interpersonal approach will lead to effective Inclusive education practices. They propose changing attitudes and expectations as the indispensable pre-requisites for changing existing Consequentialism policies. They advocate resource allocation, based on the number of enrolled students displaying low-level skills. Changing attitudes and expectations are the very concepts that emerge from the assessment of the influence of Inclusive education practices on the micro-environmental factors of Parents and Teachers. Thorley, Hotchkis, and Martian (1995) stipulate that parental concerns such as receiving the necessary specialization attention, and developing all students' fullest potential are directly related to the process of communicating and informing parents. Many parents are concerned that Inclusion models of education remove medical labels which results in lessened support. This is supported by Wright (1999), who suggests many parents misinterpret the push for the "least restrictive environment concept". Teachers concerns can also be related, to attitudes and expectations. Thorley, Hotchkis, and Martian believe that Teachers Inclusive education concerns such as curriculum, the specific nature of the disability, and levels of professional development are related to current perceptions of Special Education framework. Thorley, Hotchkis, and Martian (1995) and Ennio (1995) suggest the development of a more effective interface between regular and special education will lead to unified approach in facilitating individuals with special educational needs. In general, the arguments for and against Inclusive education contain many complex, interrelated components. At the present time the positives appear to outweigh the negatives. The identification of these arguments does acknowledge that no matter what the arguments, that teaching is an extremely inspiring and important profession. An assessment of the positive and negative aspects Inclusive education emphasizes the need to provide an approach that is holistic, compassionate and rational. References Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-202. Bracken, B. A., & Samprecht, M.S. (2003). Positive self-concept: An equal opportunity construct. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 103-121. Cole, P. G. (1999). The structure of arguments used to support or oppose inclusion policies for students with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 24(3), 215-226. Education Queensland's cs-15 Policy on Inclusion. (2004). cs-15 [Data file]. Australia: Education Queensland. Ennio, C. (1995). Inclusive education: What do we know and what do we still have to learn. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 498-502. Hunt, & Doering, K. (2003). Collaborative teaming in order to support students at risk and students with severe disabilities in General Education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 70, 316-335. Norlander, K. A. (1995). Shifting paradigms in school environments. In Community rehabilitation services for people with disabilities: Vol. . . . Special education and the role of the educator. Palmer & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on inclusion for children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66, 466-485. Pivik & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators in inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 70, 98-108. Praisner. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary principals toward the inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children 69(2), 135-146. Soodak, L. C. (2003). Classroom Management in inclusive settings. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 327-334. Stodden, R.A., Galloway, L.M., & Stodden, J.N. (2003). Secondary school curricula issues: Impact on postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 9-25. Thorley, B., Gotchkis, G., & Martian, M. (1995). Clearing the way for Inclusion. Special Education Perspectives, 4(2), 71-80. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 140-147. Wright, E. B., W. (1999). Full inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular classroom: It is the only answer. Children & Schools, 21(1), 11-23. Read More