Posted on 12/10/2004 6:13:45 PM PST by kiki04
Placing Special Education Students in the Regular Classroom Can Be Detrimental to All by Steve Leadley 08 December 2004
The new trend of "inclusion" refers to the placement of special education students in the "regular" education classroom.
A new trend has emerged in today’s educational environment. It is called “Inclusion.” For those not familiar with this term it refers to the placement of special education or “classified” students in the “regular” education classroom. The main motivation for this change in policy is the decision to place students’ self-esteem at the top of school objectives. Placing the classified student in with the general population has diminished the stigma of being considered “special ed.” Yet however beneficial this policy may be for individual self-esteem, it has created new problems that may be far more destructive not only to the “classified” students, but also to the “regular” students as well.
Historically the “special needs” student has gotten the short end of the stick in America’s public schools. The prescribed method of dealing with these children was neglect and insensitivity. The liberalism of the 1960’s led to a vigorous and steady redress of moral and legal imperatives regarding this population. School districts adopted more elaborate and diverse diagnostic tools, Child Study Teams were developed, and new and innovative methods were applied in helping these students overcome their deficiencies. In the last decade however, the aforementioned gains have been eroded. Rather than continue to place these students in a small classroom environment where they are afforded individualized attention from special education experts, they have been integrated into the regular education classrooms so as to soften the stigma of being labeled “special.” In the attempt to impart social acceptance, schools have educationally stifled these students.
The legal justification for the aforementioned situation finds its origin in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These federal laws guarantee that children with disabilities get a “Free and Appropriate Education” (FAPE). Both laws require that affected children “be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with children who do not have disabilities.” Most states have their own laws with similar jargon. Here in New Jersey, a student must be provided with a “thorough and efficient education” in “the least restrictive environment.”
As with all such efforts, this legislation began with the noblest of intentions. Presumably the objective was to give a mentally capable, though physically handicapped child, access to the same education as his intellectual peers. Thus the school would have to make “reasonable accommodations” (a term from the Americans With Disabilities Act) so that an academically bright deaf child, or student confined to a wheelchair, could have access to the regular classroom. As time progressed, self-esteem advocates began to use these laws to gain access not only for the physically disabled, but the Neurologically Impaired” (N.I.), “Perceptional Impaired” (P.I.) and “Emotionally Disturbed” (E.D.) students as well.
Students who are classified as either N.I. or P.I. have been deemed cognitively disabled. Consequently, these students often encounter serious difficulties in the regular education classroom. To counteract this, schools place Special Education teachers and instructional aides in the classroom to help these students and tailor I.E.P.’s (Individual Education Plans) to circumvent students’ deficiencies. An I.E.P. can prescribe virtually anything. Some state that children with reading difficulties do not have to take tests in written format, extra time is usually allotted for tests and assignments, and some even exempt students from doing homework. As one might imagine, there are several problems with this system. First, any self-esteem benefits are quickly nullified as the Special Education teacher or aide conspicuously hovers over the classified student reading the book or test to them. Another more damaging problem concerns the fact that these students’ deficiencies are circumvented rather than overcome. The high school student who reads at a third grade level would undoubtedly benefit more from one-on-one contact with a reading specialist who could teach strategies and techniques to improve literacy, rather than simply have the test or assignment read to them. Similarly, it is likely that the irresponsible student would benefit more if held accountable for homework than if this flaw were simply ignored.
The E.D. student poses a different set of problems. “Emotionally Disturbed” is the classic classification placed on “bad” kids. The E.D. tag absolves these students of responsibility for behavior problems, emotional outbursts, and disinterest in school. The self-esteem crowd contends that these behaviors are not the fault of the student, but rather the blame is placed on the “disability.”
This abdication of responsibility has become even more en vogue with the advent of AD/HD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). This disorder is characterized by “developmentally inappropriate impulsivity, and in some cases hyperactivity…” “…for some people the problem is so pervasive and persistent that it interferes with daily life including home, social, and academic settings.” CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficiency/Hyperactivity Disorder) describes some of the common characteristics of these children: “The AD/HD child is easily distracted, struggles to follow instructions, does not appear to listen, avoids or dislikes sustained mental efforts, makes careless mistakes, fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in chair, has difficulty remaining seated, runs about or climbs excessively, has difficulty engaging in activities quietly, talks excessively, has difficulty waiting or taking turns, and interrupts or intrudes upon others.” Though CHADD states that AD/HD is one of the best-researched disorders in medicine, they admit that no single test exists to diagnose AD/HD.
Placing “special needs” students in the regular classroom can obviously retard their intellectual development, but can also have a negative impact on the regular education students. Schools try to group students homogeneously by ability so that teachers can design lessons that are at the appropriate ability of the whole group. Even with such a system in place, students encounter problems and need some individualized attention. However, if they are placed properly, this extra attention is diffused proportionately among the class. When N.I. or P.I. students are thrown into the mix, they often occupy a disproportionate amount of the classroom teacher’s time. Of course Special Education teachers and aides can often help, but they are not experts in the content areas, so these types of problems fall heavily upon the regular education teacher. Thus the education of the regular population is unfairly hampered when the special needs students monopolize a teacher’s time.
It is also unfair for special education students to be graded on the same scale as regular education students if they are not responsible for the same level of work. If an I.E.P. states that a special education student does not have to complete homework, or is afforded unlimited time on tests, yet receives the same credit for the class, an uneven playing field is created. Not only is this unjust to the regular education student, but it creates a dangerous illusion for the special education child. The real world is a harsh place where results are expected. If a boss tells an employee that he expects the report on his desk by five o’clock, the employee won’t last long if they reply: “I get extra time on reports. My I.E.P. in high school said so.”
The inclusion of the E.D. student can also compromise the rights of the regular education student. The disruptive, hyperactive child definitively interferes with the education of the well-behaved, attentive students. Yet there are still those who champion the right of these students to be included in the regular classroom. Nancy Weiss, the Executive Director of TASH (“an international organization devoted to equity and social justice for people with disabilities and their families”), states: “We have a responsibility to offer supports for people to change behaviors that are dangerous, disruptive, or interfere with their ability to achieve goals that they have set for themselves…” What about the goals the regular education students have set? Do they have the right to achieve them unencumbered by disruptive children?
Undoubtedly there are classified students who can meet with success in the regular classroom. I have had special education students in my classes who have excelled and were welcome additions to the classroom. However, in order to ensure that all students are provided with the best education possible, self-esteem must take a backseat to academics. A special education student should certainly be granted access to the regular education classroom if he or she is capable of performing without undue “modifications” that impede their development. Likewise, such students should be excluded if their behaviors detract from the learning environment. The educational opportunities of the regular education student should not be stifled in an inane attempt at stroking the ego of the minority student. Students with special needs should get individualized attention from experts in an intimate environment where the focus is on overcoming their deficiencies rather than ignoring or circumventing them. After all, how stigmatized do you suppose that individual will be trying to get through life on a third grade reading level?
Steve Leadley teaches American History in New Jersey. He has been published in The Press of Atlantic City and The Courier Post, and is the author of the novella Conundrum.
The whole class suffered because of his behavior, but his parents SUED the school to keep him in a regular classroom.
Nothing new under the sun. It used to be called "mainstreaming".
You posted this for all the DU lurkers here tonight didn't you? Just to show them that studies show that the left-behinders shouldn't associate with the regular folk.
...and they're DELIGHTFUL on the playgrounds! Usually larger (older) than the other children and without any concept of "other."
I thought this was brought in during JFK's administration. He instigated legislation that would forbid "pigeon holing" special ed students. Also released many borderline mental patients from the wards. That's how we ended up with schizophrenics on the street....
i had to sit next to one of the special ed students, very quiet but i was expected to show him everything 3 or 4 times and still do my work in the required time.
Didn't read the article -- didn't need to. All I can say is: Duhhah!
They did this when I was in jr. high about 40 years ago. Bad idea, very disruptive.
I ended up resigning from the school district I was teaching in because of the number of Behavior Disordered kids I had to deal with. I was unable to teach the other students because of the constant disruptions of the BD kids, and the administration refused to do anything to alleviate the problem, so I just resigned out of sheer frustration. Currently I'm applying for teaching jobs in different states, and failing that, I'll just go into the cattle business with my uncle. I figure I'll just give history lessons to steers.....at least they listen better than some of the kids I was saddled with.
That's completely unacceptable. You are not an employee of your public school system. You are a student.
Why should it be un-nerving for a pretty 10 year old girl to sit next to a boy who makes frequent marriage proposals and randomly takes her things off her desk?
Some parents of "special education" students are quite rational about their child's educational program; some are nazi-type advocates looking for attention and a chance to wave a bloody shirt.
I think this stuff dates from the Carter Admin., not the JFK one.
I hope you find a position, the world needs more conservative history teachers!
Agreed. My nephew is autistic, and just started KG. We are delighted that he is being mainstreamed. He is doing very well, and as long as he is doing well my sis will keep him in a regular classroom.
oh i understand that. thankfully due to a scheduleing conflict i was transfered out of that class after 3 weeks, so it didnt affect me much.
I don't understand why they would keep him in, unless your system has really subpar disability programs. Well, I do understand. The women we work with in Ry's class and beyond tell us their nightmare stories of parents who want to "fix" their kids. They are in steady denial that their children will be normal someday. Certainly, there are times that those evaluating may be overestimating the situation, but some parents have been to independent evaluators with the same diagnosis and still they live in la la land, which imo leads them to insist on something that may be detrimental to the child.
That said, this caught my eye:
Rather than continue to place these students in a small classroom environment where they are afforded individualized attention from special education experts, they have been integrated into the regular education classrooms so as to soften the stigma of being labeled “special.” In the attempt to impart social acceptance, schools have educationally stifled these students.
I don't think by any means this is standard for all schools. In our system, the child is evaluated prior to kinder and every year beyond while in school and the determination is made how much time, if not all of the time, they will need to be in the special ed classroom. Obviously, for children who only have minor or even moderate speech delays, they probably wouldn't need to go there for more than 1/2 hour a couple times a week, but for children, like my son, with autism, it may be necessary for him to spend a good portion of his day in a more specialized classroom joining the other students only for the more hands on and visual learning experiences, especially in the early years of his education while he is still adjusting to the stimulus of being in a large classroom(hopefully that will be a non issue someday since everyone is positive on him going to the same small Christian school my daughter does where he likely to be only one in about seven kinder students and where he will see the same faces he sees week after week in church making it less overwhelming.)They also have no issue with a child "taking a break" in the special ed rooms when it is obvious they are overstimulated.
My granddaughter had a BD boy in her class and they found out in the 1st week that he cared what she thought so to keep the peace the teacher sat him by her. They tried once or twice to move him away from her but he would misbehave and go from As to Ds and they'd move him back. This went on for 3 years. They did ask her consent. Then his mother got married and they moved and she never ever said anything about missing him but she does worry about him a little. I can see the difference in her this year, I think she is relieved to have lost that responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.