Inclusive Education vs Segregation - Literature review Example

All children in society deserve the very best that they society can afford them in terms of education. This means that society has a responsibility both to those who have special needs and those who are considered to have more mainstream needs. Based on my experience of working in a secondary school special needs school I am of the opinion that children with special needs might thrive better if they were segregated so that they could have specialists focus on their particular needs. Although my impressions to date make me gravitate towards segregated education for special needs children, my evolving knowledge of inclusive education, including the exploration of research studies, leaves open the possibility that in the future I could throw my wholehearted support behind inclusive education. The word "segregation" sounds negative and creates the impression that those who are separated are not given the care and attention that they deserve. Students of history may very well find parallels in the United States educational system in the 1950s and 1960s when blacks had to attend segregated schools with inferior facilities. Those who link segregation with less than stellar care and attention may be forgiven for that, considering this unfortunate historical reality. But segregation, in my view, need not be viewed in such a negative light if there is a true commitment on the part of society to attend to the needs of each member of the society. It would seem, at least, on the surface, that putting children with special needs together with those in the mainstream does a disservice to both because each group is unable to get the kind of focus it requires to have its members develop themselves to their full potential. As Russell (2006) reports, "The cost of inclusion, a hard-hitting report produced for the National Union of Teachers by Cambridge University, said a lack of resources was putting a huge strain on teachers and teaching assistants as they struggled to cope with their more challenging pupils" (Russell 2006, p10). There is an implication that standards suffer because, the inclusive classroom, which opens up mainstream classrooms to children with special needs forced teachers without the proper training to grapple with problems that took their focus off their mission of educating the children under their care. According to a National Union of Teachers report, there are examples of "teachers grappling with personal care tasks, such as dealing with tracheotomies or changing nappies rather than teaching, which meant the education of mainstream pupils was often neglected. In other cases, special educational needs pupils were often left in the care of teaching assistants who lacked the necessary expertise" (Russell 2006, p10). For some parents who have advocated for inclusion, having a disabled child in a normal classroom may provide a psychological boost, that the child is a worthy part of society, whereas segregation may be perceived as an attempt to "hide" or push the most vulnerable members of society out of sight, and perhaps out of mind. Some examples of successful inclusion such as that of a California, US high school student, Lindsay Fisher, who has mental health problems but has been able to remain a part of the regular school system, provides hope that inclusion programs can be successful. As Lopez (2008) writes of Fisher, "Her mental illness hasn't stopped her from navigating a busy class schedule on her own. Fisher gets straight A's, and teachers say she is a good example of why emotionally disturbed children should be in regular schools if possible. It's a concept called "inclusion," and it's nothing new. Hundreds of emotionally disturbed students attend class at regular campuses across the central San Joaquin Valley" [California] (Lopez 2008, p1). Those who support inclusion note that the practice of mixing special needs children and their mainstream counterparts helps the special needs children to develop the kind of social skills they need to survive in the world later on in life. But more than that, "Inclusion also benefits students without disabilities, proponents say.”It gives them a better understanding of special-needs student while learning tolerance and empathy" said Cheryl Mohr, director of special education for the Madera County Office of Education, which provides programs for emotionally disturbed students" (Lopez 2008, p.1). Some of the problems associated with inclusion seem to come from lack of training on the part of teachers. In one case cited by the Guardian newspaper, an autistic boy Ieuan Packenham often became easily frustrated and was much noisier than others with his condition. As Deborah Packenham, the boy's mother notes, Ieuan was perceived as being badly behaved and I would receive phone calls fro the school telling me what he had done now, rather than asking me for advice on how to deal with it....Teachers expected him to behave like everyone else, which was impossible...Even though his primary school had a resource base for children on the autistic spectrum there was a fundamental lack of understanding of the condition. It wasn't the fault of the staff. They just didn't have the training. (Lepkowska 2008) Comments such as the above give the impression that if teachers were much better equipped in terms of the essential knowledge and skill of handling special needs children, all will be well in the inclusive classroom. Without the necessary training teachers are forced to use their own perceptions to guide how they manage special needs children. As such, "instead of recognizing the atypical development of children and young people on the autistic spectrum, teachers tend to view them through a "typical lens," comparing their behaviour with children who do not have the condition. Some, like Ieuan's teachers, believe they can force autistic children to behave as other pupils do, or that it is a condition that they will grow out of" (Lepkowska 2008). In the absence of the essential support system in the school environment, it is understandable why some might desire to have more specialized, segregated schools for children like Ieuan. Even the principle of inclusion is said to occupy the "moral high ground" (Croll & Moses 2000 p1), most government-backed reports that have surfaced in connection with this issue have left some room for segregated education of children with special needs. Regarding the Warnock Report (1978), for example, "alongside the commitment to integration, considerable attention is given in he Report to the role of special schools and the circumstances in which a special school placement would be appropriate" (Croll & Moses 2000 p2). According to this report, such segregated schools would be in most need for consideration "when the difficulties experienced by children were especially severe or complex, when the behaviour of children was such as to disrupt the learning of other pupils in mainstream schools or when children had failed to flourish in the mainstream and needed the 'intimate communal and educational' setting of a special school" (Croll & Moses 2000 p2). The 1997 Government Green Paper, Excellence for All Children also notes that "the needs of individual children are paramount" and, because of this, "separate provision may be necessary on occasions" (Croll & Moses 2000 p2). This kind of nuanced thinking is refreshing in an area where proponents of one system of the other tend not to see eye to eye. Professionals, in particular, or those on the professional path, need to cultivate a sense of objectivity and try not to be caught by the emotional pleas on either side of the divide. Although my experience and instincts make it seem to me that children with special needs will be better off in a separate school all their own, I am willing to admit that such as school cannot be a panacea if it does not have the properly trained staff or if it means that children within that system never get to have any interaction with their counterparts in the mainstream. It seems unlikely that over a lifetime society should wish that children with special needs live apart from others if it is possible to help them towards becoming an integral part of society. In effect, it is a noble aim for societies such as those in the United Kingdom to express the hope of achieving the ideal of inclusion for all children. In fact, in one study, "Even special school heads who did not express support for inclusive policies implicitly acknowledged their status as an ideal, however, unrealizable. One head of a school for children with very serious difficulties was adamant that there would always be a need for schools like his. Nevertheless, despite his conviction that inclusionist policies were hopelessly unrealistic, he recognized their position on the moral high ground" (Croll & Moses 2000, p.5). With such an ideal as the goal of society, it seems likely that the necessary effort will be put into helping these vulnerable children. Exploration of Inclusion While I have not fully embraced the notion of inclusion, I fully see the potential it holds as an ideal for society. In order for me to become fully convinced, however, it would be important for me to investigate some of the ways in which roadblocks to effective implementation of inclusion will be overcome. Such an opportunity has presented itself as I will be obtaining practical experience in a mainstream school shortly. Once in the system I need to learn from my own experience, seek the opinions of other teachers and professionals, and continue to engage with ongoing research in order to sharpen my thinking about the issues. On the whole, it seems that having highly trained teaching assistants who can help defuse challenges posed by children with special needs can ease the resistance that some still to having disabled children in the regular school environment. How are teachers, who are already overburdened with paperwork and other demands to cope with such difficulties emanating from some of their students? The other issue has to do with the provision of resources. It seems that many schools are trying to do too much with too little. In effect, it is not that their regular teachers cannot cope with disabled or special needs children. Rather, it seems that they do not have adequate funds to hire the necessary people or to provide training for teachers. One of the advantages that children with special needs have in a segregated school is simply that they can get more attention and time from their caretakers. This raises the question of whether comprehensive schools can provide a similar level of care and attention. A simple model of inclusion is one that involves having a special needs child in a mainstream class. It may be that society needs to look a more nuanced view of inclusion and consider other possibilities. For example, could there be a special needs classroom located on the same premises as a regular school? Such a model may mean that those in regular classrooms can have limited interaction with people with special needs but the two groups would not remain complete strangers to each other. And such a model would allow each group to get the care and attention necessary while having the opportunity to interact socially or even through special classes geared towards better understanding of each other. Another element is the role funding plays in the debate inclusion. When teachers have complained about having to deal with special needs children in a classroom the subtext is that they are not being paid enough to handle the duties associated with handling special needs children. This raises the question of whether teacher pay should be reviewed to take into consideration the additional burdens that go with managing an integrated classroom. The kind of funding in place and how it is used can make a difference to whether inclusion is accepted by teachers, parents, or other stakeholders. As Fletcher-Campbell et al (2003) write, Each method of funding provision for special educational needs has different outcomes, judged differently by different actors. For example, funding based on lump-sum models tends to be more flexible and avoids bureaucratic procedures, while pupil-bound budgets empower parents, stimulate accountability and have the potential to result in equal access to appropriate education. What is appropriate education? Is appropriate education a one-size-fits-all? Would putting all special needs children in the classroom constitute appropriate education? Would it be appropriate education if teachers are adequately trained to be able to meet the needs of both special needs children and those in the mainstream? At what cost would this be to the teachers involved? Would they need to be paid more money or should such teachers accept the role as a matter of course? Perhaps a contribution to society? Should special needs children with severe disabilities have the opportunity for specialized care or would the benefits of their being in a regular classroom outweigh such a need? Should the decision about the inclusion or otherwise of special needs children be taken only from the point of view of the special needs children? Or should the needs of the children in mainstream society be equally considered? Is there any empirical evidence to show that special needs children who are part of a regular classroom develop better?　Or is this something that people simply hope would happen? The above questions clearly show that the issue of having special needs in a regular classroom is quite complex and that taking a simplistic view risks hurting one person or group or another. As I become more enlightened about the issues raised above, it is possible that my views would move from being currently pro-segregation to pro-inclusion. My sense, however, is that it is important for all stakeholders, including the governments at all levels, parents, teachers, school boards, and scholars, to take a more nuanced view of the issues affecting special needs children and to avoid taking the kind of broad brush approach that appears good on paper but may not be effective or beneficial in reality. Bibliography Clark, C. et al. (1999). ‘Theories of inclusion, theories of schools: Deconstructing and reconstructing the ‘inclusive school’. British Educational Research Journal, 25.2, 157-174. Croll, P. and Moses, Diana. (2000) ‘Ideologies and utopias: education professionals’ views of inclusion’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 1,1-12. Fletcher-Campbell, F. et al. (2003). ‘Distribution of funds for special needs education.’ The International Journal of Educational Management, 17.4/5, 220. Golder, Gill. (2005). ‘Preparing teachers to teach pupils with special educational needs in more inclusive schools: evaluating a PGCE development.’ British Journal of Special Education, 32.2, 92-99. Lepkowska, D. (2008). Why don’t you understand? The Guardian , 11 Nov. [Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk] [Accessed 20 March 2009] Lopez, Pablo. (2008). ‘Schools face challenge with disturbed kids: Roosevelt death puts inclusion policy in the spotlight.’ MClatchy-Tribune Business News, May 18. Mallory, A.L. (2009). ‘Parents rally behind schools’ inclusion program: the Montgomery County School Board said it wants to evaluate – not eliminate – the program.’ Mclatchy-Tribune Business News, Jan 8. Nutbrown, C. and Clough, P. (2004). Inclusion and exclusion in the early years: conversations with European educators.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19.3, 301-315. Russell, V. (2006). Special needs policy has failed, say teachers. Public Finance, 10. ‘Special-needs students feel accepted.’ (2009). McClatchy-Tribune Business News, Jan 10. ‘Union vents anger at inclusion policy.’ (2004). Community Care, 1519, 11. Read More