Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Sabrina Torbet
Email: bambam@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psych100G: Diversity in Developmental Psychology
College: UC Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 12 Dec 1996
Time: 20:00:24
Remote Name: mingong-mac-01.ucsc.edu
Schools deal with diversity in their student population along a number of dimensions (gender, race, cultural background, etc.). Currently at the forefront of much controversy and educational reform is the question of how best to deal with the diversity of the educational needs of students. In recent years, special education programs have come under the fire of educational reformists who argue that the negative effects of this method of accommodating the diverse educational needs of students (labeling and segregating) far outweigh any conceivable benefits to the child placed in such a program. The proponents of this view believe that mainstreaming (to some extent, if not fully) children of all educational levels provides the optimal educational experience for all children, regardless of any diagnostically-assessed differences.
Schools deal with diversity in their student population along a number of dimensions (gender, race, cultural background, etc.). Currently at the forefront of much controversy and educational reform is the question of how best to deal with the diversity of the educational needs of students.
Traditionally, students are diagnostically tested and labeled and assigned to distinct educational curriculums. A child is placed either in regular classroom or a special education program, which is designed to accommodate those students who do not fit into the "normal" group of students in terms of their educational needs. This latter group, divided into "low end" students and "gifted" students, is partially or, more often in the case of the “low end” group, completely removed from the mainstream curriculum and the "normal" students to which it caters.
In recent years, special education programs have come under the fire of educational reformists who argue that the negative effects of this method of accommodating the diverse educational needs of students (labeling and segregating) far outweigh any conceivable benefits to the child placed in such a program. The proponents of this view believe that mainstreaming (to some extent, if not fully) children of all educational levels provides the optimal educational experience for all children, regardless of any diagnostically-assessed differences (www Rural Inclusion Program, 1996).
The no-holds-barred approach to this philosophy can be found in "inclusive schools". In an inclusive school, all of its students are educated in the mainstream (general education and classes), and all of the students are provided with the appropriate educational opportunities within the mainstream that are challenging but geared to their capabilities and needs. Advocates of this approach describe these schools as places where everyone belongs, is accepted, supports, and is supported by his/her peers, and that in this setting, all students receive the best possible educational experience. A small but growing number of inclusive schools in the U.S., Australia, Canada, and Italy, among other countries, have met with success (Stainback and Stainback, 1996) An example of this success can be found at East Northport Middle School, NY, where the program’s evaluation was as follows:
Evaluation: Learning Disabled students are: Doing well in academics and in most social situations. Bringing more academic work of better quality, into class. Receiving positive role modeling by stronger students. Are showing improvement in behavior. Showing improvement in self-esteem. Developing a real sense of belonging within a group. (www Northport Middle School, 1996)
The issue of special education versus the mainstreaming or "inclusion" method of attending to the needs of children who have been diagnostically labeled as being either above or below the "normal" child in learning capacity is huge. I could hardly do it justice in the length of this paper (entire books have been devoted to its discussion), so having briefly described the two approaches and their respective viewpoints, I hereby limit the remainder of my discussion to the implications classification has for those students who do not fit into the "normal" group and are, as a result, segregated to a significant extent from their peers in the mainstream "regular” classrooms.
Students who are assigned to special education programs (I am putting the "gifted" program on hold for now and referring only to those children on the "low end") are diagnosed on the basis of academic and social competence (primarily determined by standardized tests and behavioral observation, respectively). Since 80-90% of students in special education programs are diagnosed with mild educational disability ( Stainback and Stainback, 1992), I will focus on this group, though classification carries repercussions for all its members.
Probably the most obvious negative consequence of labeling children is stigmatization. Children labeled as disabled (whether mildly or severely, physically or mentally, etc.) are responded to in terms of their differences rather than their similarities. When children with disabilities are removed and labeled as somehow different from the rest of the children, stigmas and rejection are strengthened. An "us against them" mentality is practically unavoidable if the two groups of students are kept separate; they are given little or no opportunity to interact with and learn about eachother, so how can they learn to see differences (educational diversity) as valuable?
As stated in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), separate education can "generate a feeling of inferiority as to [children's] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds... This sense of inferiority... affects the motivation of the child to learn... [and] has a tendency to retard... educational and mental development.”
Since a child's identity is shaped by their membership to many different groups, assigning a child a singular label like "disabled" effectively ignores, or significantly obscures the other groups to which the child belongs (i.e. girl, only child, Jewish, swimmer, piano player). Placing such focus on membership to one group in particular (i.e. disabled) devalues the role that a child plays in a variety of other groups, which can effectively undermine the child's self-esteem.
Labeling also effects the expectations the educator places on the child. There is plenty of evidence to support the concept that students will largely achieve as much as they are expected to achieve. If children in special education programs are not expected to do as well as those children in the mainstream, then it may be reasonable to assume that, for that very reason, they will not.
A significant problem with labeling children as disabled is that it downplays the possibility that these children have problems that were initially and/or are continuously caused by environmental factors. Labeling the child assumes that the problem lies within the child his/herself and is independent of outside conditions. As a result of this assumption, there is a de-emphasis on intervention that would aim to effect change in the environmental conditions themselves. The possibility that the problem lies in the teacher’s inability to meaningfully instruct this child is ignored. So there also results a de-emphasis on developing systems to improve the school’s ability to accommodate students with diverse backgrounds. It is worth noting here that there are a disproportionate number of minority students placed in special education programs.
“Gifted” programs also provide a commentary to children about what the school considers relevant about themselves. The label “gifted” is normally given to children based on an IQ score over 120. It is important to consider that IQ tests have be shown to be culturally biased, etc. (Stainback and Stainback, 1992). When a school decides to label a group of children as “gifted”, it has “decided” that certain characteristics (i.e. IQ) are of special interest and importance. It sends a message to children that most differences are not as educationally relevant and, as a result, devalues those other characteristics (i.e. social skills, creativity). While the negative consequences of labeling and segregational placements are shown to effect first and foremost those children who are segregated, they are not the only ones who miss out: Students without disabilities experience an education that places little value on diversity, cooperation, and respect for those who are different.
I plan to teach elementary school and so I feel I will have a very personal stake and responsibility in the handling of this issue. I strongly agree that schools should place a much greater emphasis on the restructuring of classrooms and training of teachers so as to accommodate children with diverse educational needs, instead of labeling and segregating children to preserve classrooms that are as homogeneous as possible. It definitely places the weight of the responsibility on the school system itself instead of on the child, and I strongly feel that, as a result, all students would learn to see differences as opportunities for learning and diversity as something to be valued. As Harvard professor Robert Barth (as cited in Stainback and Stainback, 1990) so clearly put it, "Differences offer a free, abundant, and renewable resource. I would like to see our compulsion for eliminating differences replaced by an equally compelling focus on making use of these differences to improve schools. What is important about people - and about schools - is what is different, not what is the same."
References
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1996). Inclusion: A Guide For Educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
WWW Source #1: Northport Middle School Inclusion Program (1996).
WWW Source #2: Rural Inclusion Project (1996).
