From: Kim Harries
Email:
Course: EDST390: Instructional Strategies and Reflective Practices
College: University of Delaware
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/EDST390
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 19 Dec 1997
Time: 19:47:13
Remote Name: pax-ca35-05.ix.netcom.com
The following is a paper about mainstreaming: the controversy over the integration of disabled children into regular classrooms. The paper begins with the history of mainstreaming, including information about Public Law 94-142. The paper continues with descriptions of the different categories of mainstreaming. Next, the paper tackles the advantages and disadvantages of mainstreaming. The paper ends with stating the important role that teachers play in the success of mainstreaming. Throughout the entire paper, claims are backed up with documented sources, including two internet articles.
Controversy over the mainstreaming of students with learning disabilities into regular classrooms provides substantial evidence in favor of mainstream education. Although the heated debate which has risen over the pros and cons of mainstreaming remains intense, arguments supporting mainstreaming tend to outweigh those against mainstreaming. Protesters of mainstreaming think only of the children with a high chance of academic success. The obvious question is who has the right to judge that only mentally advantaged children should be afforded the opportunity of a normal classroom education? After all, more than just academics are learned in the classroom. Social interaction skills, for instance, also play a huge role in the education process. Simply because mentally disabled children do not have great academic potential does not mean they should be stripped from the experience of attending a regular classroom.
The history behind mainstreaming does not date back too far. Physically and mentally disabled children were always stricken from society and placed into separate institutions. The neglect shadowed on disabled children ended on November 29, 1975 when President Ford signed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Otherwise known as Public Law 94-142 (P.L. 94-142), the Act required the government to provide substantial funding for all handicapped children from age three to twenty-one in order for them to receive a free public education (Barbacovi and Clelland 3). The signing of P.L. 94-142 marked the beginning of mainstreaming. Who would have thought that such a positive step in education would turn into the highly controversial issue it is today?
In order to adequately examine the mainstreaming process, one must fully understand its components. Mainstreaming is defined as the “U.S. term for the integration of children with special needs into the ordinary education system” (Williams 126). Integration, however, is divided into three main sections termed locational, social, and functional integration (Williams 106).
In locational integration, the first category of integration, the disabled students are taught at the same location as the regular students, but in separate units or schools. Locational integration permits little contact between students with special needs and regular students.
Social integration, the second type of integration, consists of a separate formal education for regular and special education students. Students from both groups do have social interaction, however, including mealtimes, playtime, and extracurricular activities.
The third, and last, type of integration is functional integration. Under a program of functional integration, children with special needs attend the same classes as the regular students and partake in other activities as well. The main point of functional integration is that the curriculum is shared between the special education students and the regular students ( Williams 106).
Dr. Philip Strain, who is the Director of Early Intervention Services at the Allegheny-Singer Research Institute gives the simple definition of mainstreaming as, “The placement of Special education students into certain non-academic classes such as art or music or into regular classes when they are “ready” (“Mainstreaming vs. Inclusion”).
Protesters of mainstreaming give many reasons as to why mainstream education is not profitable. One common complaint, made primarily by parents of excelled students, is that when children that are slow learners are placed into a regular classroom, they bring down the level of learning of the other students. Supporters of mainstreaming, on the other hand, have a flood of evidence that supports the benefits of integrating disabled students into the regular classroom.
In an investigation done by eight graduate students, ninety-three students from two inner-city public elementary schools were observed. The purpose was to examine the differences among students with learning disabilities, students with low academic achievement, and students with average academic achievement. In each of the 22 classrooms involved in the study, two children labeled as learning disabled were mainstreamed. A somewhat unexpected result of the experiment was that the students with learning disabilities displayed a greater academic engagement than the students with low achievement. In addition, the students with learning disabilities showed a great interest in the academic lesson and, consequently, received more attention from their teachers (Kastner et al. 52-56).
The data received from the research investigation proves that disabled children have the desire and self-motivation to learn. This fact contradicts the statements made by opponents of mainstreaming, who claim that learning disabled children in the regular classroom will bring down the level of learning of the average students. Instead, it seems from the results of the investigation that the opponents of mainstreaming need to admit that it could be the children with low academic achievement, rather than the children with learning disabilities, that bring down the average students’ level of learning. Although children with learning disabilities may not far as well on tests as low or average achievers, their presence in the regular classroom certainly will not hinder the success of the other students. It is a known fact that students will respond according to the expectations placed on them. When learning disabled students are placed in classrooms with regular achieving students, higher expectations are placed on them. In turn, their desire to excel increases.
Another concern of many protesters of mainstreaming is that students with disabilities have social difficulties. They believe that learning disabled students that are integrated into the regular classroom will become outcasts (Farmer and Farmer 431). Advocates of mainstreaming, on the other hand, claim that the mainstreaming of disabled students results in better socialization skills for the disabled children (Willis 6).
In a study of the social relationships of students in mainstream classrooms, researchers found that students with disabilities were well integrated into the regular classroom social setting. All students with learning disabilities were included in peer clusters. The results clearly disprove the concern that students with learning disabilities would be outcasts in a regular classroom (Farmer and Farmer 446).
Another advantage of mainstreaming pointed out by experts is that the nondisabled children in a mainstreamed classroom will learn to accept people despite their differences (Willis 6). Nondiscrimination is an important life lesson, and mainstreaming provides the opportunity for children to learn it. In addition to reducing discrimination among peers, mainstreaming promotes a system of cooperation. Students are forced to work together and create a cooperative, not competitive, environment. All of the previous listed advantages of mainstreaming are part of the goal of mainstreaming which is to “create a classroom/community where all children can work together, learn, and develop mutually supportive repertoires with peers and adults” (“The Goal of Inclusion”).
A two-year study by the National Association of State Boards of Education confirms the role of the teacher in the mainstreaming process as essential to the success of the program. Although teaching in an integrated environment represents a drastic change for the teachers involved, it incorporates a positive change from the norm of isolated teaching. Mainstreaming requires a pair of teachers to work together: one from the regular classroom and one from the special education department. Teachers report that mainstreaming is most successful when they use the general curriculum as the basis of instruction, and make adjustments as needed (“Winning” 29-30). By sticking to the regular curriculum, the normal students are not at a disadvantage, and by making adjustments where needed, the special education students’ needs can be adequately met.
The evidence provided proves that mainstreaming learning disabled children into regular classrooms results in a profitable situation for everyone involved. Despite the many protests against mainstream education, research confirms that mainstreaming provides enormous benefits. The students with disabilities are awarded the experience of social interaction, while the regular students can learn to accept peers with an academic disadvantage or handicap. Many different programs are available to accommodate for each unique classroom situation. Disadvantaged students may attend the regular classroom for extended periods of the day, or for only a short time. The system is flexible and works beautifully when orchestrated properly.
The true coordinators of the mainstreaming process are the teachers. Each pair of teachers that work together must have the desire to teach all children in the least restrictive environment. The extra time and planning involved in creating such an environment requires an immense amount of dedication. Americans owe everything to the caring teachers who go out of their way to help our country’s children. If only everyone could see the benefits reaped from mainstreaming instead of showing a stubborn resistance to change, more children would gain the opportunity to succeed in life. Children are our future, and each child, regardless of intellectual ability, deserves a fair chance.
Works Cited
Barbacovi, Don R., and Richard W. Clelland. Public Law 94-142: Special Education in Transition. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators, 1977.
Farmer, Thomas W., and Elizabeth M.Z. Farmer. “Social Relationships of Students with Exceptionalities in Mainstream Classrooms: Social Networks and Homophily.” Exceptional Children 62 (1996): 431-449.
Kastner, Joan, et al. “Use of Incentive Structure in Mainstream Classes.” The Journal of Educational Research 89.1 (1995): 52-56.
“Mainstreaming vs. Inclusion.” http://www.psych.westminster.edu/medvin/psy46/inclus/mainstreaming.htm
“The Goal of Inclusion.” http://www.psych.westminster.edu/medvin/psy46/inclus/goal.htm
Williams, Philip, ed. A Glossary of Special Education. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1988.
Willis, Scott. “Inclusion Gains Ground.” Education Update Dec. 1995: 1-8.
“Winning Ways for Inclusive Schools.” The Education Digest Dec. 1995: 29-30.