Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

Contemporary Issues in Education:

Inclusiveness
07/19/2016
Joshua McWhorter

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

Inclusiveness in the classroom is an educational practice that requires that children with
disabilities be educated as much as possible within a general education environment. A situation often
referred to as placing children in the least restrictive environment that still allows them to function and
learn effectivelypreferably while still surrounded by members of their own peer group. And although
the merits of using this type of teaching environment has been proven effective in many ways, it is not
without its drawbacks or its criticsand sometimes due to valid concernsas we will see. In the
following paper we will be discussing some of the benefits of inclusion, as well as some of the
consequences of using inclusion as part of general education.
To begin, our path to inclusive education has been a long one, but the 1950s and 1960s were a
period of particular interest. The United States experienced sweeping changes to the legal and financial
nature of its education system during this period. These changes included the role that the federal
government plays in the funding and regulation of schools (Osgood, 2005.). Also with these changes
came a far greater understanding of the nature of disabilities and the enrollment of such children in
regular school environments rather than segregated institutions. By 1963, more than 1.5 million
students were enrolled in some sort of special education programs, with over 60% spending at least part
of their day in a regular classroom (Osgood, 2005). Today, it is far higher, but back then the
marginalization and abuse that many children with disabilities dealt with was still a major national
issue, primarily because of our exclusionary practices against those with anything but mild disabilities.
Early on we relied heavily on institutions designed to house and care for those with disabilities.
This practice even encompassed many of those with mild to moderate physiological impairments,
cognitive deficiencies, and/or emotional problems. These institutions often separated those with
disabilities from the rest of society, but their effectiveness had come under serious fire as investigations
uncovered that the quality of education was lacking and their handling of those in their care was often

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

far below the standards of other organizations (Osgood, 2005). The environments were found to be
unsanitary and often alarmingly abusive. This, along with new scientific data about disabilities, forced
the government to expand its inclusionary practices and to legally define how those with disabilities
should be treated and educated. Both the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the
later Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are great examples of these efforts in play.
The benefits of this type of education practice, and its purpose, is to allow those with disabilities
to develop the social, emotional, and functional skills to live and succeed in regular society (Yanoff,
2007). Its secondary purpose is to foster a greater understanding of those with disabilities and to
promote a greater sense of empathy and acceptance for those with disabilities by those without (Yanoff,
2007). But this isn't done without consideration to their individual needs (known as mainstreaming).
Most children who are part of an inclusionary group and require some sort of special education, have
those needs defined through the use of some type of educational program. One of the most common is
the individualized eduction plan (IEP). This IEP, according to Hallahan, Pullen, et al. (2015) is a legal
document that describes the educational services that a student receives (Pg. 26). It defines not only
the legal requirements, but also helps those involved develop and define a long-term, approachable, and
ongoing plan for the child's development.
With the use of these special forms of guided planning, both in the short-term and in the longrun, the teacher is better able to meet the needs of the student(s) with special needs and maximize their
learning (while still promoting social development). This is often done through co-teaching where the
general education teacher will work closely with special educators to put together a comprehensive
system for meeting the needs of the student in that general education environment (Hammeken, 2007).
This sort of co-teaching, bi-educational model allows the teacher, and the school, to meet the
needs of a wide variety of students while helping ensure that they are building the skills necessary to
function properly later in life (at least that is the goal)--hopefully avoiding the marginalization and

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

discriminatory practices that did so much harm to such individuals in the past. For this to work,
according to Hammeken (2007) the team members should hold the belief that the team teaching
provides a more effective teaching environment, which in turn benefits all students, not only those with
special needs (Pg. 33). This is because the inclusive environment isn't only for the benefit of those
who have been identified as having some sort of special need, it is also for the benefit of the regular
student. This is what inclusion is: a bi-directional environment for education that is designed to
hopefully create a more collaborative and understanding society, and it has proven effective in many
ways.
Today, most of those who had previously been institutionalized for everything from deafness
and blindness, to emotional problems and cognitive disabilitieswhere they were marginalized and
stigmatized by society and cast off to the fringes of our communities, and often left in institutions with
little or not opportunities for advancementhave been successfully integrated not only into the
classroom, but back into our towns where they are afforded far more opportunity to live fulfilling lives.
They are also less stigmatized and face less harassment than those who grew up in a far more
segregated, exclusionary system. Primarily due to the inclusive environments that we have fostered
through our modern education practices, and our expanded understanding of disabilities that came
about through a combination of legal, ethical, and scientific progress (Osgood, 2005).
But the practice of inclusion isn't without its problems, or its criticsparticularly when
discussing the idea of partial versus full inclusive classrooms. Many of whom point out that inclusive
classrooms can be disruptive to other students, preventing them from maximizing their educational
opportunities. They feel that dealing with students who are disruptive, take more effort, or are
extraordinarily unmotivated, may be diverting the teacher's attention away from students who would
benefit more from those instructional effortspotentially reducing teacher's effectiveness and leading
to long-term declines in class performance and academic attainment (Refice, 2006).

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

And these concerns aren't without warrant, entire books have been written to address these
problems and to help teachers learn about and apply instructional-disciplinary strategies in an effort to
help them deal with problems they may encounter in an inclusive classroom. And even teachers,
themselves, sometimes feel that too much inclusion hurts their ability to function as an educator
(Refice, 2006). Others have argued that a focus on creating over-inclusive classrooms hurts all of those
involved. Limiting the developmental opportunities of those with special needs and keeping them from
getting the instruction and the attention that would otherwise benefit them. Some even argue that
placing too much responsibility on the general education teachers, who might not have the time or the
skills to properly deal with the special needs of all their students, stresses them and makes them less
effective. Which, of course, limits the learning opportunities of regular students (Fuchs, 1998). It also
seems worthwhile to mention that most critics don't seem to completely disagree with some inclusive
practices. What they argue is that there should be clearly defined parameters that govern when
inclusive practices should be considered and when they may be counter-productive to learning.
Clearly, using such practices is still a highly debated subject, particularly when it concerns
where the benefits of inclusiveness begin and where they end. Thankfully, some educators and
academics have concerned themselves with finding solutions to current practices, rather than focusing
on their overall benefits and drawbacks. In Aune, Burt, and Gennaro's book Behavior Solutions for the
Inclusive Classroom, they readily admit that dealing with children with a spectrum of disabilities can
be difficult and offer potential solutions to dealing with children with a diversity of needs. Their
suggestions include creating reasons for hyper kids to get up and move, mini-lessons to introduce new
content in incremental fashion, creating clearly defined schedules, precise communication, and a host
of other disciplinary and pro-active methods for dealing with disruptive or disorganized children. And
in Constance McGrath's book Inclusion-Classroom Problem Solver, McGrath discusses various
conditions and provides readers with solutions for dealing with various behaviors. She focuses directly

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

on dealing with the struggles that educators may facetaking a more personal approach than the
former. Both are good beginning resources for new and potential educators looking to understand the
challenges of inclusion in modern education.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it can easily be argued that inclusive practices have
greatly benefited certain disabled groups, raising their quality of life, and life-long potential, far above
where it was in the last century. And although discrimination is still an issue, especially for those
suffering from mental illness, discriminatory practices against those with disabilities has dropped
considerably. Millions have benefited from these inclusionary practices, and continue to benefit from
their use, especially for those with more mild forms of impairmentpeople who might have otherwise
been left behind and/or kept isolated in institutions designed to separate them from society because of
unfair stigmatization.
In these regards, efforts to increase inclusiveness has been a success. But other issues come to
mind. At what point do inclusionary practices go too far and begin to harm one group, or both? Critics
would argue that our attempts to accommodate those at the perceived bottom are compromising our
ability to fully educate those who don't require such accommodations, reducing our potential as a
society. They might also argue that children with special needs would benefit from having more
specialized instruction and more individualized form of attention, freeing the general educator from
those responsibilities and allowing them to focus their efforts on what they do best, teach. These are
fair assessments and deserve equal study and consideration.
History tells us that fully excluding individuals does more harm than bringing them into the
folds of society. Additionally, some research indicates that taking it too far creates problems of its own,
limiting education. The answer here seems to be somewhere in the middle, where a balance can be
found that meets the needs of all groups, disabled or otherwise.

Ivy Tech Community College EDUC 250 Final Paper

Cited:

Aune, B., Burt, B., & Gennaro, P. (2010). Behavior Solutions for the Inclusive Classroom. Arlington,
TX: Future Horizons, Inc.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1998). Competing visions for educating students with disabilities: Inclusion
versus full inclusion. Retrieved July 24, 2016, from
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Childhood-Education/20854464.html
Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2015). Exceptional learners: An introduction to
special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hammeken, P. A., & Hammeken, P. A. (2007). The teacher's guide to inclusive education: 750
strategies for success: A guide for all educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McGrath, C. (2007). Inclusion-Classroom Problem Solver: Structures and Supports to Serve All
Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Osgood, R. L. (2005). The History of Inclusion in the United States. Retrieved July 24, 2016, from
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/HIUS.html
Refice, A. (2006). Inclusion in the classroom: Finding what works for general education teachers. Law
and Disorder. Theresa Ochoa, School of Education, Indiana University
Yanoff, J. C. (2007). The classroom teacher's inclusion handbook: Practical methods for integrating
students with special needs. Chicago, IL: A. Coyle Press.