MAINSTREAMING.   Term Paper ID:21472 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Evaluates education of students with special needs in regular classrooms. Laws, types, alternatives, successes & failures.... More...

11 Pages / 2475 Words 10 sources, 24 Citations, APA Format $44.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Evaluates education of students with special needs in regular classrooms. Laws, types, alternatives, successes & failures. Paper Introduction: The Regular Education Initiative (REI), first formally introduced in 1986 by former Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeleine C. Will, called for general educators to become more responsible for the education of students who have special needs in school. Mainstreaming, the practice of placing students with disabilities into regular education classrooms, has been accepted for some time; nevertheless, however, Will lent official sanction to the notion that regular education should take over even more of the functions traditionally thought the province of special education. In essence, she questioned the legitimacy of special education as a system of education distinct from general education. The REI, as articulated by Will, was vague with regard to how much regular education should assume responsibility for the education of students with disabilities. In fact, that vagueness has contributed to the current debate in the 1990s over the roles of special versus regular education in Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. . In other words, rotememorization has won out over essential thought processes. 184). Controversial Issues ConfrontingSpecial Education: Divergent Perspectives. New York: Merrill.----------------------- 9 McIntosh and Vaughn (1994) state,"Although mainstreamed students with learning disabilities show somewhathigher interaction levels at the elementary grades, middle school and highschool students demonstrate little classroom task-related interaction withthe teacher or peers; and little is asked of them by the general educationteacher" (p. 78). Mainstreaming, the practice ofplacing students with disabilities into regular education classrooms, hasbeen accepted for some time; nevertheless, however, Will lent officialsanction to the notion that regular education should take over even more ofthe functions traditionally thought the province of special education. 77). In other words, isn't a "teacher specialist" a "specialeducation teacher?" Wisniewski and Alper (1994) provide five guidelines for successfullyimplementing inclusion. ReferencesAltman, R., & Kanagawa, L. . These professionals believe in what they referto as full inclusion" (p. 184). (1994). Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped ChildrenAct of 1975, provides for a free public education for individuals withdisabilities. The legality of full inclusion will be examined later; at this point,as a preface to later discussion, it is important to note that specialeducation law stipulates that schools place students with disabilities inthe least restrictive environment (LRE). Does the above conclusion pose a problem for the inclusionist? 259). The least restrictive environment (LRE) clause of Public Law 94-142had already placed responsibility on the school district to educatechildren with disabilities in the same settings and programs as nondisabledchildren to the maximum extent appropriate--such placement would, ofcourse, vary from child to child. Wood (1991) writes,"Functioning as a road map for instruction, the IEP is the one safeguardparents have to insure that their children receive instruction designed tomeet their unique educational needs" (p. Altman and Kanagawa (1994) argue for arestructured system in which all students benefit from the presence of thedisabled. One of the placement options for handicappedchildren does include the regular class for most of the school day. W. Special education reformers had worked hard to insurethat a full range of educational services would, in fact, be offered.Previous to the passage of Public Law 94-142, school personnel were free toclaim that they did not have services for children with disabilities and todeny these children access to regular classes. The Regular Education Initiative (REI), first formally introduced in1986 by former Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeleine C. 53). Instead of more state mandated educationalreforms, the Stainbacks and their like-minded colleagues would like to seethe elimination of special education programs, and the creation ofcooperative learning and peer instructional methods in generalinstructional practice. Two of the law's provisions are particularly relevant to theinclusion issue. 4-13.Wood, J. In their concluding statements concerning instruction and learning inmiddle school science classes, Nolet and Tindal (1994) maintain that"frequently, middle and high school special education programs center oninterventions in the resource room aimed at helping students "pass thetest" in content classes" (p. In addition, they cite Turnbull and Turnbull's 199 study toconclude, "society most certainly benefits when all members haveopportunities for mutual access and interaction" (p. Theabsence of the phrase "special education teacher" is apparent here. The REI, as articulated by Will, was vague with regard to how muchregular education should assume responsibility for the education ofstudents with disabilities. suggest a hostof child and environment variables which individually and collectivelyinfluence outcomes in each type of setting" (p. The authors contend that such a use ofteaching time is misspent, because the special education teacher is simplyteaching to the test. Inclusionists have even coineda word to parallel "racism," "sexism," and the plethora of other "isms"cataloging inequity: "handicapism." The detractors of full inclusion see it as too radical a shift frommainstreaming. A. Burrello and Lashley (1992) conceive of aninclusive scenario wherein teacher generalists and teacher specialistsbring unique resources to a collaborative relationship (p. Will, calledfor general educators to become more responsible for the education ofstudents who have special needs in school. As they state, "Even though findings from some investigationshave indicated that simply including students with disabilities intogeneral education classrooms does not result in learning benefits, it hasconsistently been found that, when provided appropriate educationalexperiences and support in integrated classroom settings, students learnmore than they do in segregated settings" (p. 249-261.Nolet, V. The basic components of most full inclusion models include thefollowing provisions: (1) all students should attend the school to whichthey would go if they had no disability, (2) no student should be excludedon the basis of type or extent of disability, and (3) special educationsupports should be provided only within the context of the generaleducation class and in other integrated environments. & Tindal, G. 53). Exceptional Children:Introduction to Special Education. The inclusionary stance is that studentsshould not be segregated into special classes, period. However, dismantling special educationprograms (the battle cry of inclusionists) would appear to counter publiclegislation. Althoughstudents with learning disabilities were included in class activities, theyparticipated very little. Waldron & A. Hallahan and Kauffman (1994) put the current debate over inclusioninto perspective when they state, "in recent years, some special educatorshave begun to argue vehemently against the notion of the LRE. & Alper, S. (1994). C. & Vaughn, S. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) note that the above approach to placing thespecial student with general students for the entirety of the school day(with some attendance by a special education teacher) is still not goodenough for inclusionists. 29). As far back as the mid-197 s, an IEP, or Individualized Instruction Plan, was mandated. Boston: Allyn andBacon.Wisniewski, L. Inclusion seeks to make such arelative decision irrelevant, because all children should be in generalclassrooms all of the time. New Perspectives in Special Education: A SixCountry Study of Integration. Including students with severedisabilities in general education settings: guidelines for change.Remedial and Special Education, 15, pp. Whereas mainstreaming took the best of the full continuumof special education services and combined them with partial inclusion inthe general classroom, proponents of full inclusion are uncompromising intheir position that the mere labeling of some students as "special" hasalready done damage. 167). 184-193.Borrello, L. Student-initiated behavior itemson the classroom climate scale by grade grouping. TheStainbacks (1992) maintain that they are sound in their judgement that arationale for full inclusion does exist, despite ostensible evidence to thecontrary. Their "observational and anecdotal records . In the inclusionists' view, if the special education apparatus is tobe effectively salvaged, it must be dismantled and merged with generaleducation. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) cite the Stainback's (1992)contentious belief that special education has the tendency to "locatestudents' learning and behavior problems within the child, thus absolvinggeneral education of responsibility for the children they have removed fromtheir system" (p. In theirscenario, "the regular teaching team retains responsibility for serving thestudent with the assistance of special education teachers or relatedservices professionals. TheJournal of Special Education, 28, pp. The authors are saying that current trends favorcontent area instruction by regular classroom teachers, even for the smallpercentage of students who are getting content area instruction from theirspecial education teachers. Adapting Instruction for Mainstreamed and At-RiskStudents. Some of the solutions offered by inclusionists willbe discussed later; at this point, it will be sufficient to note that manydetractors offer "a pessimistic prediction about the current movement'ssuccess in forging a productive alliance with general education (Fuchs andFuchs, 1994, p. There is evidence by extrapolation that inclusion is more successfulon the elementary rather than the high school level. It is thiscollaborative support between special and general education teachers whichprovides the necessary bridge for the disabled child. It was earliernoted that a child could be mainstreamed into regular classes for an entireschool day, with minimal supplementation by the special resource teacher.In facing the future, educators must above all else be pragmatic enough todo what is best for the individual student, without regard to the vagariesof educational trends. The inclusionist would attribute the above shortcoming to the absenceof a suitably trained special education teacher in the general classroom,teaching in collaboration with the general education teacher. These provisions insure the existence of (1)individualized education programs (IEPs) in the (2) least restrictiveenvironment (LRE). A. It isimportant for those concerned with educational reform not to miscast reformas semantics. (1992). In fact, that vagueness has contributed to thecurrent debate in the 199 s over the roles of special versus regulareducation in educational programming for students with disabilities.Today, views on the inclusion of students with disabilities range from fullinclusion--the belief that all students with disabilities should beeducated solely in the regular classroom--to the belief in the maintenanceof a full range of service delivery options (the continuum of servicesoption), including residential institutions, special schools, specialclasses, resource rooms, and regular classes. In Special Education: TheChallenge of the Future. 191). (1991). Althoughstill a minority, this group is growing ever stronger and more vociferousin their attack on the LRE. 166-176.Pijl, S. Susan and William Stainback (1992), of theUniversity of Northern Iowa, are two such vocal proponents of fullinclusion. (1994). Hallahan and Kauffman (1994) outline thepremises of full inclusion as the following: "(1) labeling of people isharmful; (2) special education pull-out programs have been ineffective; (3)people with disabilities should be viewed as a minority group; and (4)ethics should take precedence over empiricism" (p. As discussed previously, a collaborativeteaching paradigm provides the best approach for inclusion. Such aplan was developed annually for all children with disabilities receivingspecial education and/or related services. In other words, whatis best for the student varies to the extent that one setting cannot besaid to be appreciably better than the alternative. Therefore, a special student may be in theregular class 1 per cent of his or her school day, although that studentmay receive 21 percent of his or her instruction from a special educationteacher in that general, or regular, classroom. 68). Burrello and Lashley (1992) provide an inclusive school scenarioconsisting of teaching teams. Pijl(1994) indicates the option, in keeping with PL 94-142, that "studentsreceive the majority of their education in the regular class and receivespecial education for less than 21 per cent of the school day in or outsidethe regular class" (p. They emphasize, "This reliance on special educators toteach content information runs counter to current trends in contentpedagogy" (p. Finally, inclusion will be put to the practicaltest in both the elementary and high school levels. Instruction and learning in middle schoolscience classes: implications for students with disabilities. As Altman and Kanagawa (1994) assert, "this position frequentlyentails the literal restructuring of schools through the merger of specialand general education" (p. They argue for no less than a need to "reconceptualize theconstruct of schooling [so that] the student is at the center ofeducational reform" (p. The assumption behind the law asit pertains to LRE is that a variety of service delivery options need to beavailable. London: Routledge.Stainback, W. 3 2). Education and Training in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 29, pp. For them, the answer is as simple as making a case for basichuman, or "civil" rights. 259). Academic and social engagement ofyoung children with developmental disabilities in integrated andnonintegrated settings. (1992). 171). J. They observed that(1) general education students seemed to be more sensitive to presentationsof information in class than low-achieving (disabled) students, and (2) thelow-achieving (disabled) students attended to fewer concepts and were lessattuned to the presentation of attributes or examples of concepts duringinstruction (p. In order to fully understand the true nature of the inclusioncontroversy, it is beneficial to look at mainstreaming as it has beenpracticed since the implementation of laws guaranteeing special students afree public education. K. These differencesbetween full inclusion and mainstreaming will be examined, as well as thesimilar benefits of both. As the authors indicate, "Whereas the signaturephrase of REI [Regular Education Initiative] was 'cooperation betweenspecial and general education,' the full-inclusionist mantra is "eliminatespecial education'" (p. (1994). pp. Inclusionists believe that the isolatingand dehumanizing aspects brought about by the segregation of specialeducation are unconscionable; therefore, a case cannot be made for specialeducation as a distinct endeavor. Their implication is that the student is still notlearning to "think like a scientist," for example. McIntosh andVaughn's (1994) study of student initiated behaviors showed thatinstruction in mainstreamed classes is not differentiated to meet the needsof students with disabilities, and few adaptations were provided. (1994). Teacher specialists and regular members of theteaching team work together to implement a modified program for a studentwith a disability" (p. Inessence, she questioned the legitimacy of special education as a system ofeducation distinct from general education. Can the specialeducation student successfully adapt to the regular, or "content"classroom? Asurvey of this author's literature regarding mainstreaming and inclusiondid not yield any court cases which question the practice of inclusion (ormainstreaming), and this is perhaps because "mainstreaming," or the partialor full instruction of disabled persons in regular classrooms, has amplesafeguards protecting individual opportunity. In addition, the legalities behind the inclusiondebate will be discussed. 294). If such is the case with mainstreaming, as well as withinclusion, more, rather than less, special education intervention may berequired as special education students mature. Just as the civilrights movement sought to insure the rights of minorities, so do theproponents of full inclusion want students with disabilities to beperceived of, and taught as, all students. P. If studies ofmainstreaming are examined (they are plentiful, since such programs havebeen in place for a considerable time, relative to inclusion), it isapparent that, as the ages of students increase, so does the disparitybetween the special and general student. Fuchs and Fuchs (1994) reiterate that theinclusionist leadership would like to see an end to the continuum ofservices primarily because it precludes desirable socialization experiencesfor students with severe intellectual disabilities (p. (1994). All five guidelines require educators to rethinktheir attitudes regarding educational segregation, because, ultimately,"successful change does not occur as a result of mandates from courts orcentral building administrators. They would like to see a radical shift away fromthe concept of special education--in fact, a total dismantling of thespecial education apparatus. Special education would no longer exist as aseparate entity from general education. & Lashley, C. While such mandates may act as a catalystfor educational change, they do not restructure the process for change"(Wisniewski and Alper, 1994, p. 3 7). Altman and Kawagawa's (1994) survey of the research on the academicand social engagement of young children with developmental disabilities inintegrated and nonintegrated settings supports the use of both settings,however. On organizing for the future: the destiny of special education. 11). Inclusive schools movement and theradicalization of special education reform. Nolet and Tindal (1994) are pessimistic. The well-intentioned advocates of inclusion may not realize fullinclusion in theory, but in reality, it already exists. Exceptional Children,6 , 294-3 9.Hallahan, D. 11). Thus, the degree of mainstreamingremains relative to each child's needs. The authors note, "they were not very engaged inthe learning process, either by their own or by the teacher's initiation"(p. M. The 2 percent of those students who remain inthe special education resource room are neither being mainstreamed(partially included) nor fully included in the general classroom. 3 7). & Kauffman, J. ExceptionalChildren, Dec./Jan., pp. Theanswer is no, because the inclusionist believes that ethics should takeprecedence over empiricism. & Stainback, S. 64-86. San Francisco: EMText.Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. The differences between mainstreaming and full inclusion, then, areprofound, since full inclusion is a radical departure from mainstreaming(in the guise of partial inclusion) as it has been practiced, and fullinclusion as its proponents would like to see it. (1994). Thus far, proponents of inclusionsuch as Wisniewski and Alper have written as if inclusion were aninevitable movement, gaining impetus with each passing year. 5). Why do the proponents of full inclusion want to do away with hard-wonlegislation ostensibly aimed at protecting the interests of disabledstudents? Perhaps full inclusion is inevitable, given the passage of PublicLaws 94-142 (1975), 99-457 (1986), and 1 1-336 (199 ), all of which providefor the increasing accessibility of public services to disabled persons. E.Riester, ed. TakingNolet and Tindal's (1994) 2 percent figure at face value, it is apparentthat much work is yet to be done, even in the area of mainstreaming. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.McIntosh, R. 171). S. As Judy W. In their article on the implications for students with disabilitiesin instruction and learning in middle school science classes, Nolet andTindal (1994) conclude that most special education teachers in middle andhigh school settings provide at least some instruction in content areassuch as social studies and science, with as many as 2 percent of studentswith learning disabilities receiving all of their instruction from specialeducation teachers. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.