There are so many reasons to include all children in the classroom and I'd like to point out a few:
* teachers who have only low-ability students have lower expectations
* segregated programs tend to have "watered-down" programs
* students in segregated programs tend not to have individualized programs
* students in segregated programs tend to stay in segregated programs
* most regular education teachers are willing and able to teach students with
disabilities
* the law supports inclusive practices
* Students will be able to develop the skills needed to communicate and work with
people with disabilities in their adulthood
When I started researching inclusion, I was shocked to find how many opponents there were. I assumed that everyone thought that children should be included with all other children. It seems so simple, right?
Well, here is what some opponents think:
* special education teachers have higher expectations for their students
* special education curricula are appropriate for their intended students
* individualization is more likely to occur in smaller classes with specialized
teachers than in the regular classroom
* regular teachers do not want special needs students in their classrooms
* students with disabilities have never been well-served in regular education, and there is nothing to indicate that teachers are any more able to deal with them now than they were previously
Because I do currently hold a teaching position, that I would very much like to keep, I will only make a few comments on the above list. I do want students with special needs in my classroom and with appropriate support I feel very confident I can meet their needs. With continued education classes that directly targets how to effectively teach everyone, I think all teachers would be effective at teaching in a full inclusion classroom. Teachers out there, what are your thoughts?
I think that there cannot be a one-size fits all approach. Specially designed instruction that sometimes takes place outside of the classroom in truly necessary to target very specific skills and areas of need. For some students, usually with behavior issues, inclusion for the sake of inclusion is not beneficial to anyone. We need to truly look at the needs of each students and create programs that allow them to have the instruction they need in the environment that will best support that. Research does show, especially in reading, that having a double dose really affects achievement. I also agree with you that classroom teachers need on-going professional development to better understand the how to address the needs of their students.
ReplyDeleteKari- Thank you for bringing up "specially designed instruction." I have taken a strong stance in this blog that inclusion is a must for all children, but in reality, it isn't the best for every single situation. There are severally disabled students who need a more specialized curriculum that will be more successfully taught outside the classroom. Going back to the legislation, "least restrictive" is key and I think we all need to really be creative to figure out exactly what that means for each individual student.
ReplyDeleteI have talked with many teachers whose students aren't receiving what you called the "double dose" of reading. These students are being pulled from the classroom during reading class, and are therefore missing what's being done in the classroom. We all know, however, that when a student is pulled from a classroom they are going to miss something. It's figuring out what each student needs the most and what the priorities are that is difficult. I totally agree that there isn't one answer and each case needs to be looked at individually.