In my previous piece, I discussed how inclusion is viewed both as a success and a failure. I strongly believe that inclusion is quite successful, not just for students with an NVLD but all disabilities. When there are failures, I feel they are triggered by using the “one size fits all” approach too much rather than individualising the inclusion strategies for Learning and Intellectually Disabled students, as over and under-including students bring their negatives.
For example, some districts like mine placed too many students in the lowest level courses. While this can seem helpful, it sometimes lowers the students’ level of self-esteem as too much focus is put on their disability. This is especially the case if your district has separate sections of classes just for resource room students, as this causes them to feel even more different than their non-disabled peers. In addition, students are also more likely to stop taking academic courses beyond the basic graduation requirements as being in the lowest level classes makes students feel that continuing in all academic subjects would be difficult. As a result, the majority of the students in this path achieve less, which in turn gives support to those who say inclusion doesn’t lead to greater achievements.
The recommendation for students who are getting regular diplomas was to only take 1-2 of the lower-level courses when starting high school. The research shows that students should understand what their strengths and weaknesses are rather than focusing on their learning disability. It also showed that students in this path are more driven to succeed through having to work harder. This leads to the students being more likely to continue to take academic courses beyond graduation requirements. This was the recommendation I followed, and I experienced these outcomes. Therefore, I agree with the advocates who say inclusion fails when the educational teams choose the wrong academic path for students.
Failures also occur when educational teams end up using reverse mainstreaming rather than inclusion. Reverse mainstreaming is when typical students join a special education class typically for students with more severe disabilities. Inclusion is when disabled and non-disabled students take the main curriculum together in the general education setting, whereeach class should have at least an equal split between non disabled and disabled students. For example, in my high school, there were times when reverse mainstreaming was used in the C-level English and History courses when these courses first started rather than true inclusion like they initially thought. This was because while non disabled and disabled students were enrolled in the courses, the vast majority had disabilities and were taught in a resource room setting. So, in this scenario, I understand why educational teams could say inclusion negatively affects the non-disabled students. However, I do believe that when used correctly, reverse mainstreaming is successful with how the students with more severe disabilities have the opportunity to know their classmates too.
In addition, failures also occur when students with NVLD and language based disabilities take too high of a course through inclusion. Examples would be taking courses like regular level Physics or a more advanced English course. This situation can result in the other students in the class getting less attention from their teachers. In addition the students with disabilities can ask too many questions during the class which can result in the other students becoming negative about students with disabilities.In reality the wonderful advancements inclusion brings can only go so far for each student. Therefore, I believe inclusion can fail when you overdo it.
Overall I always will highly believe in inclusion as it does lead to greater achievements . Yet,I can see its failures with how the students aren’t always placed in the right inclusion path. This is because for the other students with similar disabilities in my class their inclusion experience appeared to be disappointing by being placed in C courses along with being in lowest levels for math and science too. If more of these students were in the full inclusion path like I was, more could have experienced more successful outcomes by taking their academic courses with their non-disabled peers. Here they would have been challenged more which in turn they would have experienced greater achievements. I also have friends from college that talked about how they faced academic and emotional struggles in their upper level science classes which made them regret taking them. Therefore, if more districts were individualising inclusion rather than using a “one size fits all” for each student then seeing the successes would be easy. In order for inclusion to be a complete success the student needs a program that 100% fits their academic and social abilities.
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.
