Blog Entry 9:  April 28, 2018

Response:  Full inclusion for disabled students

Full Inclusion is Feasible for Children with Disabilities

Full inclusion is a can be a controversial topic, but most educators agree that it is the right thing to do.  The 1990 IDEA act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) mandated that disabled children receive free and appropriate education, and we need to uphold that law.  We are held to the standard of the least restrictive environment where the child can learn, and in most cases this is a general education classroom.  Education specialists define disabilities as mild, moderate, severe and profound (Kassel, slide 8), and most agree that all but profoundly disabled children will learn more and socialize better in a mainstream classroom.  This includes 98% of all disabled children!  The remaining 2% are profoundly disabled, and have a functional IQ of less than 20.  Medical professionals and parent groups agree that this group requires different care and should not be placed in full-inclusion settings (Hallan, p. 137).  This is the only group that I would recommend not receive full inclusion.

Full inclusion benefits the disabled student and it benefits the class.  Full inclusion means making all needed services available to the disabled child in the regular classroom, and this is a huge step toward making disabled students full citizens in our society.  Modern education plans often refer to “normalization” for the disabled student.  This refers to making every-day living situations available to the disabled (Gollnick, p. 199).  When we extend normalization to the schools we all win; the disabled student has an opportunity to socialize normally and experience life situations, and students in the class learn about the benefits of diversity.  When students get to know a disabled child at a deeper level they discover that disabled children are real people, and have experiences and perspectives that we can all learn from.

Our goal is to educate all children to the level they are capable, and it makes sense to continue these inclusive programs in our schools.  Care begins in the home with comprehensive “wraparound service systems” that help families care for disabled children (Hallahan, p. 73), and now disabled children are exposed to the whole range of our educational system through full inclusion.  There is also a moral and ethical question when we talk about full inclusion, and it speaks to issues of equality and access to services (Gollnick, p. 201).  I feel that it is discriminatory and wrong-headed to keep most disabled children from receiving a public education.  Full inclusion is a natural conclusion when we think about what is best for a disabled child.

References:

Gollnick, D.M., and Chinn, P.C., 2013, Multicultural education in a pluralistic society, Pearson, New York.

Hallahan, D.P., Kauffman, J.M., and Pullen, P.C., 2015, Exceptional Learners- An Introduction to Special Education, Pearson, New York.

Kassel, Jeanner, Feb. 19 2015 guest lecture, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Chico State education class.

Send problems/comments/suggestions to: tcHorner@csuchico.edu

All blog entries are the property and personal opinions of Tim Horner, and may be shared with appropriate credit.