Mainstreaming, Inclusion And Least Restricted Environment

Introduction

Inclusion is the educational practice of educating children with disabilities in classrooms with children without disabilities. Miller and Katz (2002) said that, “Inclusion is a sense of belonging: feeling respected, valued for you are; feeling a level of supportive energy and commitment from others so that you can do your best work”. According to Colombia Encyclopedia (6th ed.), mainstreaming is an ideal situation where exceptional students are placed in the least restrictive environment as possible, that is, setting of regular classrooms are set. The handicapped children are taught in regular classrooms with non handicapped children in all extends. These children may have orthopedic, intellectual, emotional, or visual difficulties or handicaps with hearing or learning problems (Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th Ed.). The least restrictive environment is where a child with disability is given an opportunity to be educated with non-disabled students to the greatest extended possible (Tara &Valentine, 1999).

Discussions

According to the Least Restrictive Environment defined in the New Jersey Administrative Code (6A:14-2.10): “ each public agency shall ensure that: to the maximum extend appropriate , a pupil with an educationally disability shall be educated with children who are not educationally disabled; special classes, separate schooling or other removal of a pupil with an educational disability from the pupil`s regular class occurs only when the nature or severity of the educational disability is such that education in the pupil`s regular class with the use of appropriate supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” Code (6A:14-2.10).

There has been an increase in interest of mainstreaming since the late 1960s in response to a number of factors showed by the research that many handicapped students learn better in regular classes than in special classes. Also the racial imbalances exist in special education classes and the civil rights movement has to put more effort on this and fight for an individual. Nieke and Thea (2009) stated two models of inclusion: push in or full inclusion. Pushing has the special teacher who enters the classroom with materials for learning and gives instruction and support to children. The push in teacher gives directions to the general teacher on how to provide instructional support to these children. Full inclusion is where a special teacher enters the classroom with the general teacher. The general teacher is responsible for the child, even if the child have an IEP. The teachers involved learn the skills since there are lots of challenges involved (Tara &Valentine, 1999). The culture of inclusion has engaged each individual and made many people to feel valued and this has initiated success of an organization.

The difference between mainstreaming and inclusion is based on the placement of the students (Perles, 2010). With mainstreaming, students with disabilities are in a self-contained class. They are taken out of separate classrooms for specific portions of the day and placed in classrooms with non-disabled peers, often with no support or accommodation and their performance expected to be similar to those of non-disabled students. Mainstreaming is usually given to those students with mild disabilities, and it involves mostly the extra-curriculum activities. While in inclusion students are kept in general education classrooms, other needs may be given as required by the student basing on the IEP. The students are involved in similar or parallel activities with or without modifications (Hines, & Johnston 1996).

Conclusion

When developing an IEP (Individualized Education Program) for the child, one should note that the child is entitled to a free appropriate program implemented in the Least Restrictive Environment (Walther-Thomas, 1997). There are issues stated that one should consider when determining placement for the child. One such consideration is that the child should be given placement in general education classroom equipped with special supplementary aids and services, often referred to “supported inclusive education”, (Americans with Disability Act of 1990(ADA) in Title 11). This laws set clearly reflect that individuals with disabilities are valued members of society. The inclusion method is preferred because it students with disabilities are considered part of general education classroom (Miller,et al, 2002).

References

Tara S. Robertson and Jerry W. Valentine (1999) An NMSA Research Summary no.14 on what

Is the Impact of inclusion on students and staff in the middle school setting? :Middle .

Level Leadership Center, University of Missouri- Columbia

Hines, R.A. and Johnston, J.H. (1996). Inclusive classrooms: The principal`s role in promoting

Achievement, Schools In The Middle,5(3), 6-10.

Keren Perles (2010) Mainstreaming and Inclusion: How Are They Different? ElizabethWistrom

The Colombia electronic Encyclopedia 6th Edition (2010) Retrieved from

Miller, Frederick A. and Katz, Judith H. (2002). The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing

The Real Power of Diversity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Miller, Frederick A. and Katz, Judith H.

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools, Columbus: National Middle School Association, 487-521.

Nienke M. Rujis and Thea T.D. (2009) Educational Research Review: Effects of Inclusion on Students With and Without Special Educational Needs Reviewed, 4,(2) 67-79. Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.

Part 2

Impacts of Inclusion

Introduction

True inclusion exists in all facets of life. Inclusive education is important in the fact that it prepares the child for adult living as students with disabilities can practice skills in the actual community settings where they develop a sense of belonging. There is also a greater exposure and improved learning through peers. As the students are placed in general classrooms, special educators provide support in that setting, the entire class benefit from that setting and hence there is effective use of resources. According to Hines and Johnston (1996), inclusion calls for a more complete merging of regular and special education. There is a philosophical position of inclusion basing on the two arguments: Segregating children in special classes or programs denies these children access to normal experiences and secondly, segregated services have not resulted in adequate education for handicapped students, (Treatment and Education of Austic and Communication Handicapped Children, 1996).

Discussion

With inclusion, the self-esteem of the child is enhanced , as physical activities involved the child develops a feeling of membership and the parent will feel their son is ‘treated like a team member` (p.23). According to Tara &Valentine (1999), children look to do what everyone is doing and children with Down syndrome are no different. In the inclusive classroom, the roles of regular and special teachers are re-defined. Vaugh and Shumm (1995), provided several characteristics of effective inclusion programs these are for teachers to choose to participate and have adequate resources for inclusive classrooms. In working together in inclusive teams those concerned should use their skills and knowledge to plan, implement, and evaluate the benefits of instructional practices for all students in their class (Walther and Thomas, 1996). While inclusion being a process through which we discover our similarities, rather than our difference, and we focus on our strengths, not our weaknesses, it does not reflect a place where special education is provided.

Tara &Valentine (1999), stated that, Inclusion advocates support the argument that segregation of a child by diagnosis or handicap is not the best interest of the child (as cited in Schelein and Heyne, 1997). In the book by Tara &Valentine, (1999), those who are in favors of inclusion accept that those disabled students who are in regular classrooms are accepted by their peers and shall have a balance relationship. Also they will tend to gain more academic knowledge according to given instruction. This will tend to increase parental attention because their children shall become more successful, hence continued achievements. With this regard teachers have found that students taught in isolation rarely pick the skills and should be taught in regular classrooms.

Conclusion

Special education students in inclusion are exposed to talented teachers and experience more quality programs in a regular education classrooms (Schattman & Benay, 1992). Some educators and public sector have doubted whether this approach of inclusion is good for regular students (Hines & Johnston, 1996). But other researchers have concluded that the inclusion of special students creates a caring and accepting community of learners as well as improved student learning for non-disabled peers. Staub and Peck (1995) said that inclusion for non-disabled students have brought in beneficial outcomes and this are; increased human confidence, growth in social cognition, improve in self-concept, development of personal principles and creation of friendly environment. According to Stainback, (1990), inclusion is appropriate instructional model because students with disabilities are accepted and earns support from the community while being given their educational necessities.

References

Tara S. Robertson and Jerry W. Valentine (1999) An NMSA Research Summary no.14 on whatIs the Impact of inclusion on students and staff in the middle school setting? : Middle. Level Leadership Center, University of Missouri- Columbia

Hines, R.A. and Johnston, J.H. (1996). Inclusive classrooms: The principal`s role in promoting Achievement, Schools In The Middle,5(3), 6-10.

Keren Perles (2010) Mainstreaming and Inclusion: How Are They Different? ElizabethWistrom The Colombia electronic Encyclopedia 6th Edition (2010) Retrieved from

Miller, Frederick A. and Katz, Judith H. (2002). The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing The Real Power of Diversity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Miller,Frederick A. and Katz, Judith H.

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools, Columbus: National Middle School Association, 487-521.