Major Issues of Inclusion - Term Paper Example

?REVIEW OF LITERATURE "Difference thus invites a form of engagement and understanding that allows for the preservation of the individual. Self and other survive in a structural integrity?" Keller, 1985 Introduction The irrevocable truths about nature are only two; diversity and dynamicity. Everything else is ephemeral. Both of these attributes in any setting provide opportunities as well as resources for developing new concepts and strategies (Grenier, 2010). The concept of inclusion has gathered impetus from this diversity or from being differently-abled rather than social, cultural and even scientific biases categorizing them as “disabled”. However, the issue involves the intricacies of human brain; of the differently-abled as well as of those who are responsible for facilitating their learning. Hence, the problem is much more complex. The ongoing inclusion vs. non-inclusion debate stems from the concerns of educationists, researchers, parents and policymakers for the appropriate learning and development of these differently-abled children, efforts to make them a part of the real world, recognize their potentials and help develop skills enabling an earning, and in the process avoiding any incident that may lower their self esteem, or lead to their further exclusion. Another aspect of the debate is the uniqueness of these individuals, rendering generalizations unfair. History of Inclusion A society is judged by the way it treats its members who are different, weak, disabled and poor. Following this line of judgment, history of human civilization has abundant evidences of society being highly intolerant and unaccommodating. It has failed to provide for the ‘different’ in general; one example of which is its treatment of the differently-abled learners such as the physically, intellectually or behaviorally disabled for long; making amendments only recently. For a long period extending up to the beginning of 18th century, individuals different from the ‘normal’ exhibiting social, political, behavioral, intellectual and physical deviance were rarely tolerated, and usually ostracized. It was only in the middle of 18th century that first reports of education being systematically imparted to the disabled in European countries are recorded; the process accepted as a specific branch of education by the close of 18th century (Winzer, 1993). In USA, prior to 1970, legal provisions allowed educational institutions to deny admission to the disabled considering them unfit for learning (Murdick, Gartin, & Crabtree, 2006). There was also either no provision for special needs students who were allowed in regular schools or they received an excluded education in a segregated classroom or school with a curriculum completely different from the regular classrooms i.e. non-inclusive education. It was only in between the 1960s and 75 that a collaborative effort of parents, disabled individuals and professionals lead to formation of advocacy groups promoting ‘equal opportunity for education’. The enactment of the 1970 education act in 1971 ended the prejudices against disabled children allowing them to be categorized as uneducable. Section 504 of the rehabilitation act passed on September 26, 1973 aimed to overcome the discrimination against individuals with handicap for federal funding (Zirkel & Kincaid, 1995). However with lack of funding and monitoring the legislation was ignored by educational institutions. The landmark Warnock report (1978) in England, Wales and Scotland proved to be turning point in developing public and professional opinion about disabled children. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (earlier known as the Education for all Handicapped Children Act) or Public law 94-142, passed in 1975 and amended in 1983 and again in 1990; lay down specific eligibilities regarding special education, parental rights and individualized educational programs (IEP). The three conditions that were to be fulfilled for special education drives were stipulated to be: Education of disabled children in regular schools Ensuring that the education of mainstream students would not be affected as a consequence of inclusion Resources will be efficiently utilized In 1990, Disabilities Act outlawed discrimination against individuals with disabilities, which along with section 504 was highly effective. IDEA ensures that all children of the age group of 3 to 21 years, and with disabilities will be provided appropriate special services in educational institutions. While for some children inclusion in regular classrooms with supplemental services is appropriate while for others provisions for segregate programs need to be facilitated (Martin et al., 1996). Finally the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 aims to make provisions to ensure that all children become proficient in reading and mathematical abilities by 2014 (Cortiella, 2006). Inclusion and Non-Inclusion: A Comparative Account The National Autistic Society defines inclusion as “Placement and education of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with students of the same age who do not have disabilities”. Exclusion on the other hand can be simply explained as lack of inclusion. Exclusion in social sciences is defined as the process leading to deprivation of an individual or group from resources they require to become a part of their social, political and economic society (Pierson, 2002) leading to social inequality. In context to special education exclusion and inclusion can be considered as two facets of the issue; lack of one leads to existence of the other. The level of controversy associated with the two and the sensitivity as well as the far reaching implications of the two has led to numerous researches evaluating the two intervention strategies for students with learning disabilities. A study conducted by Frostad & Pijl (2007) aimed to investigate the social inclusion levels of special needs children in mainstream schools in relation to the level of social position and social skill of these children. They identify two kinds of relationships, vertical or those with individuals at higher strata with regard to knowledge or power i.e. teachers, parents etc; and horizontal or with individuals at par with them e.g. peer. The relationship with peer on one hand is critical for the development of the child, on the other hand, for children with disabilities in regular schools it is not without complications, since a horizontal relationship is based on equality; in terms of social skills, developmental levels behavioral skills etc. Children lacking age appropriate skills fail to communicate and relate to the peer and therefore despite inclusion, undergo varied levels of social isolation. This isolation has immediate as well as long term detrimental effects on the individuals well being, academic achievements and self image. The study by Frostad & Pijl investigated the relationship between social skills and social position of children in inclusive classrooms. The cohort study was conducted on a group of 989 students: 491 from 4th grade (age 9-10 yrs) and 498 from 7th grade (age 12-13 yrs) from mainstream primary and secondary schools in the vicinity of Trondheim, Norway. The study population comprised of 42 learning disabled children in 4th grade and 37 in 7th grade; a total of 8.0% of the population studied. Of these 26 were identified to be with serious behavioral problems, 24 with moderate 14 with mild, 9 with communication problems, and six with motor impairments. The instrument of the study was sociometric technique based on peer nomination. Five nominations were asked by the students for classmates that they consider to be their friends. The indices of social inclusion were selected to be peer acceptance or number of nominations received, friendships or number of mutual nominations and finally, membership of cohesive subgroups in class. Social skills were described using Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) that is based on evaluation of cooperation, assertion, empathy and self control. The data analysis for the sociometric data was performed using UCINET software followed by correlation of social skills scores with social inclusion indices. Results indicated a higher acceptance of students without disabilities: 2.4% of those from 4th grade and 3.9% from 7th grade received no nominations compared to 14.3% of individuals with disabilities from 4th grade and 24.3% of the 7th grade. The lack of mutual friendships too was higher among disabled students (17.0 and 24.5%) compared to regular students (4.9 and 7.5%). On the third indices wide difference were observed among the two groups of students. Social skills levels of students with disability was marginally different from regular students of 4th grade, however the same showed statistically significant difference in 7th grade. Finally the correlation between social skill and social acceptance are presented in table 1 and 2. Table 1: Social Position and social skills for all pupils Peer Acceptance Friendships Group Cooperation Cooperation 0.08 0.11 0.03 Empathy 0.12 0.14 0.02 Table 2: Social Position and Social Skills for students with special needs Peer Acceptance Friendships Group Cooperation Cooperation 0.18 0.23 0.20 Empathy 0.26 0.23 0.23 Thus the study establishes that children with disability in an inclusive set up do not enjoy the level of social inclusion as their mainstream peer. However, the fact that there was not a remarkable difference in social skills of the two groups indicates that insufficiency of social skills does not lead to isolation and hence training in social skills alone cannot guarantee inclusion. However the study does not individually establish the variables with respect to the different types of disabilities. Further research of social skills and inclusion among individuals with varied types of disabilities would be able to provide specific correlations. Another cohort study to evaluate the social participation of pupils with special needs in regular schools was recently conducted by Koster and colleagues (2009). The study was conducted on students of grades 1, 2 and 3 from 119 primary schools in the vicinity of Groningen (Netherlands). Subjects were 141 special needs children. The instrument was a social participation questionnaire (SPQ) containing questions related to the key indices of social participation viz. friendships, interactions, self-perceptions and acceptance followed by a Mokken Scale analysis. Data analysis was done through item response modeling that assesses links between item response and a latent trait of the measured variable. An ANOVA was finally conducted which showed significant group differences in participation with respect to the type of disability; the students with behavioral disorders exhibiting least participation, while those with speech language and motor disabilities showed least isolation. However the study could not estimate participation of levels of students with learning disability and chronic illness due to small sample size, which was the major shortcoming of the study. It establishes SPQ as an effective tool for teachers to assess social participation levels of students. Researchers have investigated the impact of inclusion on children with disabilities as well as the mainstream children. One of the recent researches conducted by Webster and Carter (2010) explored the characteristics of mutual relationship among disabled and regular peers in inclusive settings. Using an interview method, relationship between 25 children with developmental disabilities and 74 of their peers was investigated across six dimensions. It was reported that even though the levels of conflict was low among these groups, so was the levels of intimacy. However, they received high scores on care, help and guidance. One of the major problems associated with inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream schools is bullying. Knox and Conti-Ramsden (2003) investigated bullying experiences of 139 individuals with speech and language impairments along with a control group of 124 individuals without impairment in a retrospective study. The participants were originally a part of Manchester language study, a longitudinal study. The questionnaire design was followed to obtain data for bullying frequency, while Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire was used to obtain data for behavioral and socio-emotional functioning. Results indicated that though most students did not report bullying, the frequency was still higher in the group with impairment, the difference being as high as 10% (17.3% in the group with impairment compared to 7.2% in regular students). While Behavioral problems showed a strong correlation to bullying frequency, other factors viz IQ, language, literacy, friendship did not. The two major limitations of the study are it being retrospective and the non-reporting of bullying incidents by participants. However, it clearly establishes that bullying incidences are more frequently associated with children with special needs since they are more vulnerable to bullying compared to their peers due to high levels of power imbalance involved (Knox & Conti-Ramsden, 2003) Next an important retrospective study conducted by Rea and colleagues (2002), aimed to investigate the relative outcome for inclusive and pull out settings for learning disabled children. The development of the concept of inclusive education has occurred simultaneously with researches leading to identification of barriers to student success in pull out settings. Some of the major barriers identified include lower expectations, restricted curricula oversimplified and generalized for the benefit of students irrespective of the nature and extent of disability, social exclusion and stigma associated with segregation. In the present study middle schools students with learning difficulties are compared in terms of performance to similar students in pull out special education programs. The sample comprised of 8th grade students from two schools; 36 from an inclusive set up and 22 from pull out set up, comparable for age, gender, race, socioeconomic status and educational level of family, IQ and disability category. Descriptive investigations were conducted on basis of archival qualitative and quantitative data gathered for a period of two years (from 1994 through 1996), with variables categorized into two categories: student (demographic and outcome) and program (including IEP and teacher variables). The inclusive set up in the study comprised of team teaching and collaborative planning. Co-teaching in form of class division into two random groups, or supervision by one teacher while the other taught, and interactive teaching; was followed. The pull out setting involved no in-class special education with four core courses being taught in general classrooms by general teachers. For the resource room the teachers were different, who worked with students for remediation of specific academic difficulty. The results were based on three outcomes: academic performance, behavior and attendance. Estimates of academic performance was obtained from course grades, state proficiency tests i.e. literacy passport test (LPT) and Iowa test of basic skills (ITBS). Statistical analysis (2-tail t test) performed on the mean values of academic performance as well as behavior estimates revealed no significant differences among students with LD in either of the settings. ITBS data showed better performance in inclusive set up. School attendances of LD students were also better in inclusive set ups. The major limitation of this study was it being based in a small set up and involving population from only two suburban schools. Besides the results are based on archival data obtained from the school records. However, the sample size of 58 students with LD is much larger than that used in other similar studies. Moreover the school records was systematic, extensive and was consistently gathered by the school authorities for the period studied. Debates favoring inclusion usually focus on principles of equality. However, efficacy should be the prime criteria in selection of service delivery. The study by Rea and colleagues (2002) specifically investigates and compares the efficacy of the inclusive and pull out delivery systems for LD children. The study on one hand establishes the better performance of students in inclusive set ups compared to pull-out; on the other hand it also indicates that with planned and school curriculum based guidance, along with appropriate support can lead to remarkable improvement of academic performance in children with LD. Further compared to fully inclusive set up a set up comprising of partial small group instruction can lead to higher scores. Finally lack of significant difference in the two set ups in school attendance is indicative of the fact that full time general education and its impacts do not lead to absenteeism, rather attendance is dependent on student satisfaction. Quality instruction and positive school environment can have an overall beneficial effect on children. Results from this study can be used by policymakers and educationist for designing an inclusive set up suitable for children with LD. Finally a significant study conducted by Throneburg and colleagues (2000), aimed to compare various service delivery models and the effects of development of vocabulary skills in schools settings. The study involved 31 participants from kindergarten through grade 3 belonging to 12 classrooms in three schools. The quasi experimental design was used with two experimental interventions: collaborative and classroom-based; that were compared with pull-out intervention. The outcome was evaluated through vocabulary test comprising of curriculum based 20 words. The study lacked randomization and treatment fidelity however it was successful in establishing that collaborative settings lead to significantly better outcomes compared to either of class-room based or pull-out settings. Conclusion Conclusively inclusion is beneficial to a special needs child since it facilitates opportunity for social inclusion in real world settings providing experiences and role models along with the opportunity. Studies in general have reported lack of significant difference in inclusive and non-inclusive set ups with reference to academic performance (Rea et al., 2002). Moreover better performance has been primarily as a consequence of techniques and interventions employed such as peer tutoring, computer aided teaching and counseling (DuPaul et al, 2011), along with individualized attention, support group, mode of delivery rather than curriculum modification. There are substantial reports of peer rejection and isolation as well sometimes leading to violence as in cases of highly prevalent though not often reported bullying incidences (Knox & Conti-Ramsden, 2003). These studies have stressed the fact that inclusion only overcomes physical barriers to isolation; the social barriers do remain since children prefer to interact and befriend individuals similar to them. They may have sympathy and may care for those that are ‘different’, but are not able to form horizontal relationships with them (McPherson et al., 2001). These issues lead to a lowering of the already lower self esteem and feeling of self worth of the children with disabilities (Leyser & Kirk, 2006). They find themselves vulnerable and hesitant to interact with their non-disable peers (Monchy et al., 2004). Data for these preferences and avoidance behavior with respect to age, gender and individual disabilities are not specifically available, yet it has been reported that interaction are more obscure in elder students and those with intellectual disabilities compared to younger children and those with motor disabilities (Koster et al., 2009). Results: Table 3: Relationship between Gender and Academic Performance ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PASS FAIL TOTAL GENDER MALE 41 3 44 FEMALE 36 3 39 Figure 1: Relationship between Gender and Academic Performance Table 4: Relation Between Type of Set up (Inclusive or Non-Inclusive) and Academic Performance ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PASS FAIL TOTAL SET UP INCLUSIVE 36 4 40 NON-INCLUSIVE 41 2 43 Figure 2: Relation Between Type of Set up (Inclusive or Non-Inclusive) and Academic Performance Table 5: Relation between Ability Level and Academic Performance ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PASS FAIL TOTAL ABILITY HIGH 21 0 21 MEDIUM 45 5 50 LOW 11 1 12 Figure 3: Relation between Ability Level and Academic Performance REFERENCES 1. Cortiella, C. (2006). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students with disabilties need to know & do. Retrieved July 2011, from National Center of educational outcomes: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/Parents.pdf 2. DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., & Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the classroom: effective intervention strategies. Theory into practice , 35-42. 3. Frostad, P., & Pijl, S. P. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European journal of special needs education , 15-30. 4. Grenier, M. (2010). Moving to inclusion: a socio cultural anaysis of practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 387-400. 5. Knox, E., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Bullying risk of 11 year old children with specific language impairment (SLI): does school placement matter. Intl J Lang Comm Dis . 6. Koster, M., Timmerman, M. E., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. J. (2009). Evaluating social participation of pupils with special needs in regular primary schools. European journal of Psychological assessment , 213-22. 7. Leyser, Y., & Kirk, L. (2006). Not all riders of the education express debark at the inclusion station. Exceptional Parent , 36 (30), 65-67. 8. Martin, E. W., Martin, R., & Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of special education. Special education of students with disabilties , 25-39. 9. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual review of Sociology , 415-44. 10. Monchy, M., Pijl, S. J., & Zandberg, T. (2004). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullting of pupils with behavioural problems. European journal of special needs education , 19 (3), 317-30. 11. Murdick, N. L., Gartin, B. C., & Crabtree, T. L. (2006). Special education law. Prentice hall. 12. Pierson, J. (2002). Tackling social exclusion. London: Routledge. 13. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilites in inclusive and pull out programs. Council for exceptional children , 68 (2), 203-23. 14. Thorneburg, R. N., Calvert, L. K., Sturm, J. J., Paramboukas, A. A., & Paul, P. J. (2000). A comparson of service delivery models: effects of curriculum vocabulary skills in the school setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 9, 10-20. 15. Webster, A. A., & Carter, M. (2010). Characteristics of the closest relationships between children with developmental disabilites and peers in inclusive settings. Australasian journal of special education , 61-78. 16. Winzer, M. A. (1993). History of special education: from isolation to integration. Washington D. C.: Gallaudet University Press. 17. Zirkel, P. A., & Kincaid, J. M. (1995). Section 504, the ADA and the schools. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Read More