Mainstreaming Ill and Disabled Students Into the Public School System
Mainstreaming Ill and Disabled Students into the Public School System
Introduction
The tension between exclusion and inclusion has been a shaping force in United States society and education. Public schools, in particular, have experienced stages of incorporating a larger number of children with disabilities into classrooms. During the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, there was a lengthy period of institutional segregated education for persons with disabilities. Today, many previously segregated learners have benefited from the social movement toward inclusive education. This movement has been sometimes slow and hesitant, but the overall result has been progress (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996).
Several researches had already made the claim that integrating the ill and disabled students in the classroom shall deter their development and disrupt the learning of the regular students. However, I argue otherwise for three main reasons: (1) Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms heightens the awareness of each interrelated aspect of the school as a community; its boundaries, its benefits to members, its internal relationships, its relationships with the outside environment, and its history (Taylor, 1992); (2) ill and disabled students’ progress can be heightened by making them experience the regular classroom. It will further help them in coping with normal students. Finally, evidence shows that ill and disabled students does not disrupt the learning of the regular students.
For this reasons, I find it imperative that school administrators, teachers, parents and students alike view the integration of ill and disabled students in the classroom more positively. The bias and stereotyping associated with ill and disabled students is hoped to be minimized particularly in Tucson, Arizona by the conduct of researches in this nature. Moreover, since there is a very limited number of schools accepting ill and disabled
Introduction
The tension between exclusion and inclusion has been a shaping force in United States society and education. Public schools, in particular, have experienced stages of incorporating a larger number of children with disabilities into classrooms. During the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, there was a lengthy period of institutional segregated education for persons with disabilities. Today, many previously segregated learners have benefited from the social movement toward inclusive education. This movement has been sometimes slow and hesitant, but the overall result has been progress (Karagiannis, Stainback & Stainback, 1996).
Several researches had already made the claim that integrating the ill and disabled students in the classroom shall deter their development and disrupt the learning of the regular students. However, I argue otherwise for three main reasons: (1) Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms heightens the awareness of each interrelated aspect of the school as a community; its boundaries, its benefits to members, its internal relationships, its relationships with the outside environment, and its history (Taylor, 1992); (2) ill and disabled students’ progress can be heightened by making them experience the regular classroom. It will further help them in coping with normal students. Finally, evidence shows that ill and disabled students does not disrupt the learning of the regular students.
For this reasons, I find it imperative that school administrators, teachers, parents and students alike view the integration of ill and disabled students in the classroom more positively. The bias and stereotyping associated with ill and disabled students is hoped to be minimized particularly in Tucson, Arizona by the conduct of researches in this nature. Moreover, since there is a very limited number of schools accepting ill and disabled
References: Affleck, J.Q., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Exceptional Children, 54, 339-348. Autin, D. (1992). Segregated and second rate: Special education in New York. (Report No. NCERI-RR-92-4). Long Island, NY: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 357 573) Carran, D., Rock, E Cullinan, D., & Epstein, M. H. (1990). Academic and related functioning of mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed seriously emotionally disturbed students. Severe Behavior Disorders Monograph, 13, 80-89. Danielson, E.C., & Bellamy, T. (1989). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children ,60, 441-450. Downing, J. A., Simpson, R. L., and Myles, B. S. (1990). Regular and special educator perceptions of nonacademic skills needed by mainstreamed students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 15(4), 217-226. Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D.K. (1987). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 367-395. Karagiannis, A., Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Logan, K., Fiaz, E., Piperno, M., Rankin, D., MacFarland, A.,& Benjamin, K. (1994). How inclusion built a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 42-44. Murphy, D.M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 469-480. Reynolds, M.C., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53(5), 391-398. Schneider, B., & Byrne, B. M. (1984). Predictors of successful transition from self-contained special education to regular class settings. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 375-380. Schnorr, R. (1990). Peter? He comes and goes....First graders perspectives on a part time mainstream student. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4),231-240. SPSS, Inc. (1988). SPSSX Version 3.1) Stainback, S., & Stainback, W Taylor, P. (1992). Community. In E. Keeler & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 52-53). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Torgeson, S. (1982). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41-53