Mainstreaming: Inclusion in Schools

Short Bus, Struggle Bus?

Amidst the incessant schoolhouse politics that go on in America's secondary schools today, special needs students sometimes get overlooked by their peers. In many areas, some schools are beginning to "mainstream" students with special needs, meaning these kids will share classroom time with other, non-disabled children. Cheryl M. Jorgensen, Ph.D., has written an open letter to the chief academic officer of the New York City school district entitled, "Inclusion: The Right Thing for All Students." In her letter Jorgensen states, "It's time to restructure all of our schools to become inclusive of all of our children." Although I recognize that the mainstreaming of special education students can be beneficial in some ways for some students, I cannot accept the blanket statement that it is the right thing for every student, and in every classroom. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the law requires public schools to create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each special needs child. An IEP specifies in detail what services and accommodations will be provided, the student's current academic performance, and the disability may affect his or her academic performance. The goal is to meet the educational needs of each individual in "the least restrictive environment" possible. The Least Restrictive Environment Test poses two questions: 1. Can the student receive an appropriate education in the general education classroom? 2. If the student must be placed in a more restrictive setting, is the student integrated to the "maximum extent appropriate"? Jorgensen states, "We shouldn't be striving to educate children in the least restricted environment, but rather in the most inclusive one." I think she is mistaken because she overlooks the individual needs of some students with her one-size-fits-all approach. My friend Mark-Robert has Asperger's syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism. I was looking over his IEP and he will be in a general education classroom for 80% of his school day. His parents will sign the IEP and return it to school officials. For Mark-Robert, inclusion may prove to be favorable to him academically and socially. I can think of another case though, where I am not so sure. I remember Ian from my high school. He had cerebral palsy, which confined him to a wheelchair and restricted him from holding his own pencil. He also had to communicate via a device that was programmed for him. Ian probably would not have benefited from being mainstreamed into a general education classroom. Experience overrules credentials. The parents and teachers of special needs children are the real experts. And according to some of them, the cookie-cutter solution of full-inclusion is not effective, and it can be harmful in some cases. In response to the doctors letter, Jennifer Moyer writes, "For years my son needed to be in a self-contained class. He suffered from debilitating anxiety. The smaller, quieter class gave him a safe place to learn at his own pace. When he was forced into inclusion in middle school, he suffered terribly. I cringe every time an expert says everyone benefits from inclusion. Oh, really? You have not met my son." Diane Harding, former special education teacher states, "Students with special needs should be included with the rest of the student body as much as possible, but not every student always benefits from inclusion." Jorgensen overlooks what I consider to be important points about large classroom sizes and lack of resources. Vicki Madden contributes to this argument by saying, "I teach in a classroom with 30% students with IEPS. It's not possible to just sprinkle them around-they are 1/3 of the kids. Class size is really important, no one can concentrate that well with 34 people in a room." Instead, some schools have large, understaffed classrooms, disproportionate to needs of the group. Jorgensen's claims also rest upon the questionable assumptions that any given school has the available resources and teachers that are equivalent to the needs of the students. Proponents of inclusion are right to argue that schools should be moving towards peer acceptance and participation, but it is not necessarily a good idea to mainstream every student in all general education classrooms. Many special needs students can benefit academically and socially, as the National Longitudinal Transitional Study that Jorgensen mentions has shown. I do think that it is important for these students to be mainstreamed as much as possible. Everyone should be included in the lunchroom, pep rallies and school assemblies, music classes, study halls, and the like. Many students can and should be mainstreamed into classrooms as often as possible. But some of these special education students could suffer in a general classroom environment, and to suggest that inclusion works for everyone is a fallacy. There is just no one-size-fits-all solution.

"Exceptional human beings must be given exceptional educational treatment, treatment which takes into account their special difficulties. Further, we can show that despite abnormality, human beings can fulfill their social role within the community, especially if they find love, understanding, and guidance."
-Hans Asperger

Link to Cheryl M. Jorgensen Ph.D.'s opinion post :
http://www.schoolbook.org/2011/11/11/inclusion-the-right-thing-for-all-students/