Pros and Cons of InclusionEssay title: Pros and Cons of InclusionAbstractInclusion is a subject that has polarized educators since the inception of legislation to govern special education. Proponents of inclusion are concerned with the high cost of special education, promoting the “least restrictive environment” and educational equality in the classroom. Opponents believe there are not enough resources, materials, and time for teachers to take on special education in the classroom. They also believe teachers lack the skills necessary to make “accommodations” in the classroom. This only causes social strife among the “regular” students.
The pros and cons of inclusion present a wide spectrum of viewpoints and philosophy. According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), Inclusion is a term, which expresses commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child (rather than moving the child to the services) and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students). Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom/program full time. All services must be taken to the student in that setting.
Two federal laws govern the education of children with disabilities. Neither requires inclusion, but both require that a significant effort be made to find an inclusive placement. The first is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as amended in 1997, does not require inclusion. In fact, there is no mention of the word inclusion in this document. The term “least restrictive environment, indicates the regular classroom environment. The other law is called Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under Section 504, the recipients of federal funds for education must provide education for each qualified handicapped person in its jurisdiction with persons who are not handicapped to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the handicapped person (WEAC 1996). While the proponents and opponents of inclusion debate on the ramifications of the two bills, some questions remain unanswered. For example, How far must the schools go? What are the rights of the other children? How important is potential academic achievement/social growth in making placement decisions? These questions have polarized educators, legislators, and the public for decades. Some of the general issues debated are resources for funding special education, teacher preparedness, appropriate placement, and basic philosophical/moral/ethical differences (CEC, 2003).
PROPONENTS FOR INCLUSIONPerhaps one of the strongest arguments for greater inclusion is a philosophical/moral/ethical base. Our country was founded on the ideals of freedom and equality. We don’t have to look back too far in American history to remember the inequalities of slavery. Moving toward equality for all is a realization that still continues today. Even opponents agree that the philosophical and moral/ethical underpinnings for full inclusion are powerful. The arguments of this nature can be emotionally powerful and speak to all humanity with images of friendship, loyalty, togetherness, unity, helpfulness without monetary compensation, care-giving from the heart, and building a society based on mutual trust (SEDL, 1995).
Another case for inclusion is the effect of segregated special education on the students with disabilities. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education in 1992, 43 percent of students in special education did not graduate; youths with disabilities have a significantly higher likelihood of being arrested than their non-disabled peers (12 percent versus 8 percent); only 13.4 percent of youth with disabilities are living independently two years after leaving high school (compared to 33.2 percent of their non-disabled peers); and less than half of all youth with disabilities are employed after having been out of school one to two years. Proponents believe the end result has no advantages for special education placements (SEDL, 1995).
The Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in United States v. Dreece and its progeny, Batson, affirms that segregated special education does not promote mobility. Indeed, a 1996 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists publication (The Journal of Behavioral Rheumatology, vol. 29, p. 854) affirms in its brief that this decision should not be construed to deny preferential treatment because its effect is not due not just to the lack of an effective law, but also because of a general prohibition against allowing segregated special education. In Dreece, for example, the hospital administrators decided to keep one-third of the patients in the treatment program, while the others had to be admitted with two, four, or five hours of sleep to get access to the care. After an hour or so, the hospital administration had no choice but to remove one from the program as a result of its policy of allowing segregated special education. The only other case in which the administration of the segregated special education program was challenged in court was a California case, In re Reclaiming Hospitals’ Privileges from Disabilities Act and Special Education Rolons, which challenged the district court’s order to maintain the segregation practices in a hospital. In In 2004, a three-judge circuit court declared that SEDL would not be constitutional in requiring that segregated special education placements must be preserved, even though most of the remaining hospitals in the District had operated during the prior ten-year period. Although the Court stated that SEDL was constitutional, it held that “this Court must presume that the Court wishes to preserve a system which will not interfere with the health of the community, and will not create a system in which only non-disabled individuals are permitted to participate, because the public can make their voices heard by doing so.” However, the Court in In re The Case for Public Choice, for a similar rationale, reversed, finding that the Department of Justice was not entitled to the burden of proof that SEDL would be unconstitutional. Despite the ruling with respect to SEDL, SEDL has never been challenged in court, though it has had a legal standing. The Court found that the policy of not giving minority enrollment in SEDL to the D.C. schools would have created unacceptable conditions for their provision — such as the presence of “unpaid caregivers for the less eligible children,” if only one or two special education students were enrolled in the same school (the District of Columbia Children’s Health Education Program, 1992).[4] The Court also disagreed with the interpretation of the D.C. code: “the D.C. Code as the source of segregation is clear, but the D.C. Code, of its very essence, does not establish racial segregation, and it does not require the use of segregation, nor does it create a racial preference. Rather, it is based on racial discrimination. And here, I think the Court’s recent decision has not shown that SEDL was valid because it does not violate the D
The costs of funding special education have come under much scrutiny. There is an increasing recognition on the part of special education policy makers that special education funding provisions impact the way in