Inclusion in Education Systems - Assignment Example

Keith Ballard maintains that special education and inclusive education are fundamentally different and cannot co-exist. Discuss the differences between special education and inclusive education and some of the controversial issues in the special education. " Education has emerged as one of the primary concerns in today’s world as even in today’s democratic societal setup this fundamental right still remains accessible only to a privileged few. It would not be an exaggeration to contend that the right to free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environment is highly contested; instead discrimination is rampant, either on the basis of color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or mental aptitude. Perhaps, the worst victims of this inequitable educational system are those children who suffer from certain disabilities, and need a intensively supportive educational system so as to enable them to participate more efficiently in society. Instead, these children are labeled as “differently abled” and deprived of education in schools meant for “normal children” on account of what is categorized as their “special needs” in catering to which mainstream educational system has emerged as dysfunctional. In recent decades controversy has been gaining ground regarding whether children with ‘special needs’ need to be addressed differently than pupils with relatively normal aptitude. Since the concept of normalcy is itself a construction, this issue falls into arena of much debate. Critics question the ethical justification of assessing a child on the basis of constructed dimensions such as IQ, and other cognitive, sensory, physical parameters and then secluding him/ her to, as Ballard (2004) states, a “separate world of special education away for part of the time or perhaps for all of the time from the children, culture, resources and curriculum of ordinary classrooms” (p. 320) Initially parents of differently abled children themselves preferred a differentiated, segregated special education system as it was considered to be the best form of expressing concern for pupils with special needs. In recent decades the two points of view have become ground for much conflict. Educationists, sociologists, psychologists all express concern regarding the desirability of having a separate special educational system as it does not diminish the problem and academic difficulties of the pupils referred. Other criticisms involved the conflict with widely accepted human rights, social undesirability, and the possibility of a separate special school system merely functioning as a ‘safety valve’ for regular schools.” (p. 317) In fact, the practice of segregating children with disability is being seen more as form of oppression as the disabled are compelled to fight for those rights which others in the community expect and receive as an uncontested right following out of their citizenship. Mostly theorists contend that given the disabilities of special children, an inclusive form of education is the ideal method for redeeming their drawbacks, and that these two approaches cannot co-exist. In fact, Keith Ballard maintains that special education and inclusive education are fundamentally different and cannot co-exist. This paper enquires into the relative merits and demerits of the two approaches that is special education versus inclusive education in context of educating children with special needs and attempts to clarify the rationale behind the need to implement inclusive education. Before proceeding to discuss the relevancy of inclusive education or special education we first need to ascertain what the terms inclusive education and special education imply. Special education, as already stated, is designed for students who are identified as significantly deficit in terms of cognitive aptitude and hence are seen as incapable of benefiting within ordinary school settings. On the other hand, inclusive education is a philosophy which when implemented as a practice aims at ensuring that students with disabilities engage for maximum time with non-disabled students, rather than being confined to a ‘special school’. The term inclusive education has been defined by Hegarty (1997) as “… an education system that includes a large diversity of pupils and which differentiates education for this diversity” (p. 1). Unlike earlier concepts of ‘integration’ and ‘mainstreaming’, which simply focused on making children with special learning needs ‘ready for’ accommodation by the mainstream, inclusion aims at securing for such children the right to participate in and the school’s duty to accept the child. Inclusive schools no longer distinguish between "general education" and "special education" programs; instead, the school curriculum is so structured so that all students learn together and avoids discriminating students on the basis of abilities. Another argument in favor of inclusive learning is that by allowing maximum participation of special children in schools meant for normal children it ensures that learning is more meaningful. It prevents differently abled students from exclusionary pressures. By labeling students with disabilities as impaired and therefore entitled only to as Ballard (2004) points out special treatments in terms of curriculum content and teaching strategies, is only fostering a ‘disabling environment’ which denies the same educational opportunities that are open to those who are not identified as disabled. Unlike earlier decades when parents preferred special teaching methods to be adopted for their differently abled children, they now realize the significance of their children being educated along with other normal children in as normal environment as possible. Inclusive education not only guarantees societal acceptance of differently abled students' but rather is conducive to the growth of their self esteem and as theorists assert maintaining a higher degree of social participation is very essential for the benefit of such children. As research has shown even the academic performance of students with disabilities has been better when they attend schools meant for normal children. As Lissa A. Power-deFur, Fred P. Orelove (1997) state, “In general, students with disabilities in inclusive settings have shown improvement in standardized tests, acquired social and communication skills previously undeveloped, showed increased interaction with peers…and are better prepared for post school experiences.” (p. 4) Moreover, the question arises on what parameters we label a child as deficient – medical and psychological, although these are relevant factors one has to acknowledge that with advances in medical science these factors themselves are being redefined and those children who in earlier decades would have been confined to special schools are now no longer seen as deficient. Contrary to this school of thought are educationists both from (special and regular schools) who consistently assert that children with learning difficulties tend to fare better in segregated schools for these schools offer highly differentiated, individually focused teaching and counseling approaches in highly controlled environments. While general education classroom teachers are teaching a structured curriculum, special education teachers have to restructure the instruction according to the learning capabilities of children with limited mental aptitude. Moreover the inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream schools require a major reorientation of teachers of mainstream schools in their approach towards students with disabilities, restructuring of the curriculum, and teaching strategies. Another criticism of practice of inclusive education is that it might be unfavorable for “normal” children. In view of this criticism, one can contend that even though normal students might suffer a nominal degree of academic deterrence by studying along with students with special needs, the harm is relatively less than the good done to the students with special needs. And as studies reveal, students with learning disabilities indicated an improvement in social skills in an integrated schooling system. In view of the above discussion I support Keith Ballard that special education and inclusive education are fundamentally different and cannot co-exist. Instead, a more holistic approach would be to expand the capability of mainstream education to cater to the needs of special children. In fact it has been observed that an inclusive form of education allows for a more healthy growth of children with normal aptitude as they develop greater tolerance, understanding and empathy. According to Ballard, (2004) “What is needed is to change from a theory of ‘special education’ which creates two kinds of children separating out from others those ‘deemed’ special, to a theory of education that addresses equity and social justice for all children, without categorization and separation, and through valuing difference and diversity” (p. 318). Thus, it can be assertively sated that the concept of special education in itself is unsound because as studies have ascertained the different educational thought and instructional methodology that special education uses are ineffective in practice. Also a lot of research needs to be done on how to transform the mainstream educational system so as to ensure maximum advantage for all children. Identifying the complexities of prescribing to the needs of children of differing abilities at the same time and using “productive pedagogies” is essential for holistic development of all children. Rather than emphasizing on the “difference” one needs to focus on assimilation by modification of existing curriculum and teaching practices. Before this can be implemented what is imperative is a change in the cultural mores and values. Unless the societal acceptance takes place inclusion in any form, be it in the field of education or otherwise is reduced to a mere hypothesis. As Ballard (2004) has pointed out that prior to the inclusion of devalued and disabled children in mainstream education what is mandatory is a cultural transformation in ideas about disability, about schools and about teaching. The role of the educator is very important if inclusive approach is to be adopted, as the attitude of teachers towards educating pupils with special needs is the decisive factor in making schools more inclusive. Since teaching students with special needs requires a deviation from the “regular programme” the role of the educator is extremely important, the teacher needs to “expand their resources, more time, materials and knowledge”. Conclusively one can assert that though the concept of inclusive education might appear complex, and full of challenges it is a visionary approach which needs to be developed fruitfully for the benefit of the student community at large. The resources (educationists, infrastructure etc) that currently are being diversified into providing two exclusive modes of education, that is mainstream and special schools, can be better utilized for the academic and all round growth of children both deemed ‘normal’ as well as ‘special”. References Ballard, K. (2004). Children and Disability: Special or Included? Waikato Journal of Education 19, 2004, 315- 326. Daniels, H. and Garnier, P. (2000). Inclusive Education : supporting inclusion in education systems. 2000. Forest, M. & Pearpoint, J.(2007) Common Sense Tools: MAPS and CIRCLES for Inclusive Education. http://www.inclusion.com/artcommonsensetools.html Kluth, P. (2005). Special Education is Not a Place: Avoiding Pull-Out Services in Inclusive Schools. http://www.paulakluth.com/articles/pulloutsvc.html Pijl, S, Meijer, and Hegarty . (1997) Inclusive education: a global agenda. Routledge London Power-deFur, L, and Orelove, F. (1997) Inclusive education: practical implementation of the least restrictive . Aspen, USA. “Division Of Educational And Child Psychology Inclusive Education Position Paper” http://www.bps.org.uk/decp/decp_home.cfm http://www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues43 Read More