Over the years there continues to be a lot of different opinions about whether inclusion in Special Education leads to success or failure. The great thing is it’s still highly favored and used in schools today as data from the advocates continue to show being included leads to greater academic and social achievements. One can argue that there are some failures and I agree with the advocates who say one trigger for these failures is that not all districts are completely following the current recommendations for implementing it to be successful. I feel this way because my high school IEP team members, while truly excellent at their jobs, failed at staying up to date with updated inclusion practices for the students who would be getting a regular diploma. Fortunately, my parents were educators who stayed current with all of the different inclusion practices so my experience was incredibly positive.
For example, my high school continued to keep the “C” level English and History classes that had become a class just for resource room students even though this approach was now considered an outdated model for students who would be getting a regular diploma. The data showed that a high percentage of the students who were taking the core curriculum in sections with just Learning Disabled students weren’t making the level of academic and social gains that they were capable of. Being friendly with students in our C track I saw first there was a lot of truth to this. Many of them talked about feeling stigmatized by being separated from their non-disabled classmates and noticed that the rigor of their work was much lower compared to the regular level. They were also disappointed that they were taught by a resource room teacher, not our regular English and History teachers. As a result,t most of the students end up experiencing less academic and social growth making it hard to argue with those who believe inclusion isn’t successful.
Since its inception, the inclusion program for students who were getting a regular diploma shifted to having them take the main curriculum in the general education classroom with a resource room teacher providing additional support and co-teaching with the academic teacher. Most learning-disabled students then had language-based difficulties so resource room teachers typically joined the English and History classes to provide support. If a resource room teacher couldn’t be available, an appropriate substitution would be to have a teacher assistant provide the support and a speech therapist could provide support and also co-teach in English Classes. ln this setup students enjoyed learning more and accepted their learning disability better through having great opportunities to see their abilities by learning side by side with their nondisabled peers. Through co-teaching resource room teachers connected with the whole class, not just their students which led to impressive social gains for students as students were realizing that everyone was more alike than different. By having outside educational and social experiences these remarkable results appeared to be very accurate. Therefore, I agree with the advocates who say failures happen because not all educational teams are following the inclusion model correctly as it isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach.
Failures can also occur when districts use the supportive co-teaching model both for students receiving an alternative and regular diploma. Students receiving alternative diplomas generally need more support and modifications than this model is meant to provide. This causes academic and resource room teachers to need to meet regularly to create alternative assignments and modified tests which means that teachers end up having limited availability to provide extra help for the rest of their students. In addition, these students tend to experience more social and behavioral challenges which increases disruptions during classes. Consequently, it is hard to argue with those who say this model is a failure with how these students require too much attention and cause other students to be overlooked.
Now to wrap up part A. In my personal opinion inclusion fails when educational teams use the one size fits all approach too often. The students need to be part of an inclusion approach that completely matches their academic and personal needs for it to be truly successful. Right now it seems this doesn’t always happen. Therefore I truly believe that those who doubt the effectiveness of inclusion would begin to see its remarkable positives if all educational teams were placing students with an NVLD, other learning disabilities, and students with disabilities like an intellectual disability, in the inclusion model that 100% fits their potential both academically and socially. Doing this would greatly increase the number of successful outcomes which in turn would allow the doubters to see how inclusion is successful.
Eileen
Eileen is a Project Social Ambassador and blogger for The NVLD Project. She loves helping others understand they can achieve their goals and dreams through hard work and dedication.
