Mainstreaming in Education - JustAnswer



Running header: MAINSTREAMING

The Benefits and Costs of Mainstreaming in Education

Your Name

Your University

Your Class Name/Number

Your Teacher’s Name

Date

Mainstreaming Special Education Students

“Especially since the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), the placement of special education students into regular classrooms has become an important issue in education” (Hansen & Boody, 1998). The least restrictive environment is often cited when referring to inclusion of special education students, also known as mainstreaming, in the regular classroom environment. Even with the increase in mainstreaming students with disabilities, issues often arise that can keep the students from succeeding in the classroom, such as rejection and special learning needs. Teachers and school administrators must understand how special education students benefit from mainstreaming, such as increased feelings of involvement in the classroom, increased feelings of affiliation with other students, increased personal growth and goal orientation, and task orientation. Mainstreaming in education allows educators and parents to understand the least restrictive environment, the various disability labels for disabled students, proponents of mainstreaming, opponents of mainstreaming, the costs of mainstreaming, and why mainstreaming is important for preparing disabled students with the ability to successfully transition into the job market and form more lasting social relationships with others.

The Least Restrictive Environment

Even with an emphasis toward mainstreaming students with disabilities, parents and school administration officials often wonder about the use of the least restrictive environment in providing classroom availability to such students. All students are provided with opportunities by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including “a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as required by law” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p. ix); however, not everyone agrees with placing all students with disabilities in the main classroom environment. The use of Individualized Education Programs for students with disabilities decreases the problems faced by mainstreamed students in entering regular classroom environments, such as comprehension of reading materials and class topics, while providing students with comparable education in the LRE. The following is a chart containing the amount of students served under IDEA since 1976:

[pic]

Chart 1-1: Children from 3 to 21 served by IDEA from the 1976-77 school year to 2006-07 school

year. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from

IDEA began with the enactment of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975. The EHA introduced the IEP as a tool to provide comparable education for students with disabilities and track such progress in the school system. The EHA was a direct result of the federal government establishing “a set of minimum standards that must be followed by states and local educational agencies regarding the education of handicapped children” (Zettel and Ballard, 1979, p. 5). Prior the release of such policy, many states provided educational requirements that all but precluded many children with disabilities; the release of Public Law 94-142 (PL 94-142) changed the availability of FAPE for all students, not just those who can attend general education classes.

Cognitive Disabilities in the Mainstream

Students with mental/cognitive disorders could be a disruption to the regular classroom environment or even physically violent. Other students with mental affective disorders, such as autism, could act out in the classroom and act inappropriately because of the lack of social skills. The types of cognitive disorders include autism and mental retardation; these disorders affect social skills, learning abilities, and comprehension abilities. Teachers, school administrators, and parents must understand the potential for difficulties with mainstreamed students and provide the skills and resources necessary to provide positive experiences for mainstreamed students, fellow students, and teachers. Even with the methods provided for mainstreamed students with cognitive disorders, students often make the transition from the ordinary classroom to a “separate place with extraordinary services” (Crockett and Kauffman, 1999, p. 2).

Students with Physical Disabilities

Physical disabilities provide issues for administrators who, seeking to satisfy Federal requirements, make adjustments to structures of the school to provide student accessibility; however, administrators do not understand how to mainstream students with physical disabilities into the ordinary class, often moving students with cerebral palsy and other motor-impairment disorders from the regular classroom because of demanding physical needs. Physical disabilities include blindness, hearing impairments, and physical vitality and these physical limitations can interfere with the student’s ability to learning in the ordinary classroom. Even with the physical limitations, increasing numbers of students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, and other physical disabilities are entering the regular education classroom, often with positive and negative outcomes from teachers, school administrators, fellow students, and parents.

Pros and Cons of LRE

Teachers and school administrators understand the reasoning for providing isolated classroom environments in addition to ordinary classroom environments, as the restrictive environments provide services to children who would not benefit from inclusion into ordinary classrooms and could cause harm to themselves and others. IDEA states procedures be established to protect children with disabilities and provide mainstreaming, provided that “the nature or severity of that handicap is such that education in regular classrooms cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (Zigmond, 2003). Parents, teachers, and school administrators should work together to facilitate the learning of students with disabilities.

Proponents for Mainstreaming Students with Disabilities

The proponents of mainstreaming students with disabilities often cite “research evidence that EMR students who were placed in segregated special classes did not seem to achieve any better than their peers who remained in regular classes (Johnson 1950; 1962; Kirk 1964)” (Meisel, 1986, p. 11). Mainstreaming provides positive outcomes because students with disabilities are not isolated from their peers, often interacting with said peers and improving social skills with other students. Mainstreaming provides students with disabilities the learned skills and experiences to successfully transition from assisted living to independent living, thus encouraging future improvements and learning from said students. Educators and administrators understand that not all children with disabilities are mainstreamed and must make adjustments to existing policy to improve the mainstreaming of students with disabilities.

People who support mainstreaming believe students with disabilities should “earn” a place in the ordinary classroom by maintaining satisfactory work completion levels (Macomb/St. Clair County Autism Society of America, 2004). Such goals would include a child who, when mainstreamed, maintains positive relationships with fellow students and achieves honor roll status in the completion of coursework. School administrators and the child’s teacher, along with the school social worker and other staff, provide modifications to the child’s Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and provide the child with a comprehensive environment stressing active participation in class and with other classmates. This child currently attends school in a central Illinois school district, benefitting from mainstreaming.

“Educators have developed many strategies for providing a mixture of regular education and special education” (“Mainstreaming,” 2006). Mild disabilities or language impairments to moderate disabilities or language impairments allow educators to provide students with specialized instruction through the use of the “pullout” system. The student is in the ordinary classroom for most of the week but is pulled out for individualized (one-on-one) instruction about three to five hours per week, with some students requiring more pullout time because of comprehension difficulties. Some students require specialized attention in mathematics and English comprehension, while some students work with the special education teacher in a separate group in the ordinary classroom.

When a child enters the special education class in the morning and at the end of the day in departure for home, the special education teacher and assistants provide the student with overall guidance and preparation for the day and for bringing homework home. One child was able to function in the classroom environment but consistently forgot some or all of his homework (including textbooks). With the support of the current regular classroom teacher and the special education teacher, the children are able to prepare for the transition from home to class and back to home.

Opponents of Mainstreaming Students with Disabilities

Opponents of mainstreaming students with disabilities often cite the inherent costs of providing free accessible public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities, such as the need for physical accessibility to public schools and technology to assist students with disabilities in ordinary classrooms. “Special-education students account for a disproportionate amount of discipline problems and sometimes commit violent acts” (Tomsho, 2007). Teachers complain about the lack of support and resources available when students with disabilities are mainstreamed into their classes. Teachers also cited large class sizes as a difficulty of providing for the needs of general education students, let alone the special needs of disabled students. Opponents also claim that such policy takes funding away from ordinary students and gifted students (students with high grade point averages), thus causing resentment of students with disabilities by their non-disability peers. Another point made by opponents of mainstreaming is that students with disabilities are not subject to disciplinary action because of the laws implemented to protect the rights of students with disabilities, according to Finn (1996).

The reason opponents still question the mainstreaming of students with disabilities is because the difficulty in defining some disabilities. Half of disabled students in the United States are termed “learning disabled,” or L.D. Teachers respond to students with L.D. by moving these students to other classrooms teachers feel can accommodate such students, while parents and civil rights activists complained that certain students did not belong in the “special education” environment. Students with emotional disabilities, such as oppositional defiance disorder (ODD), fare worse in the new system because such behaviors are difficult for the child to control, thus making separate environments necessary for such students.

Costs of Mainstreaming in Education

The costs of mainstreaming in education are often higher than the costs of general education; however, the benefits of such mainstreaming outweigh the costs. Special education students attending school in Okaloosa County, FL, are mainstreamed to provide the benefits of social interaction with general education students and increased likelihood of passing state equivalency and graduation examinations, according to Tomsho (2007). Students are encouraged to enroll for Advanced Placement Classes and other incentives, in direct opposition to more restrictive districts across the nation. The following graph identifies the costs of general education programs in Okaloosa County versus mainstreaming of special education students:

[pic]

Price of Inclusion: Okaloosa County, FL. Retrieved January 2, 2009

from Business Source Alumni Database.

The graph displays the mainstreaming program in Okaloosa County versus the costs of other mainstreaming efforts across the State of Florida. Without such programs, children like Adam Nystrom and Chelsea Clemmons would not gain personal victories of achievement in school; Adam has graduated Choctaw High School and is currently in the United States Army, while Chelsea was inspired to enroll in an Advanced Placement Class in American history and received a high C in the class.

Why Mainstreaming is Necessary

Proponents and opponents to the mainstreaming of children with disabilities agree such children require an education in addition to the social and medical services provided to such children. Mainstreaming is necessary to provide accommodations for all children, regardless of social disabilities, physical limitations, and cognitive impairments. All students have the right to learn how to read, write, and communicate in all types of environments and not just restrictive environments. For an “education system is to be excellent, it must be based on the premise that every student can learn, and it must encourage every student to have high expectation” (Lombardi, 1999, p. 5). School leaders can provide a caring and comprehensive environment that encourages students to achieve goals. Students with disabilities learn accountability for their educational pursuits and continue to improve in all types of classroom environments. The final argument for mainstreaming in education is the difficulty of forming social bonds in isolated classroom environments.

The Importance of Mainstreaming: In Review

Students with disabilities are moving from isolated learning environments to all-inclusive ordinary classrooms where learning and comprehension are required and challenged. State governments and the federal government change policies to ensure all students, including students with disabilities, receive an education comparable to peers without disabilities. Understanding the various disabilities affecting students, the reasons for adopting the LRE, proponents for mainstreaming, and opponents of mainstreaming allows school administrators, government lawmakers, educators, and parents about the possibilities of student transformation with mainstreaming allows for further facilitation of mainstreaming in all schools in the United States. Without mainstreaming and the laws surrounding such policy, students with disabilities would be denied the benefits of learning in the public school environment and such students would be relegated to special education schools, thus negatively affecting social and cognitive skills of said students.

References

Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The Least Restrictive Environment Its Origins and Interpretations in Special Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Daugherty, R. F. (2001). Special Education A Summary of Legal Requirements, Terms, and Trends. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Finn, C. E. (1996, March 11). Corrupted Intentions: Reforming Special Education. National Review, 48, 46+. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Hansen, L. L., & Boody, R. M. (1998). Special Education Students' Perceptions of Their Mainstreamed Classes. Education, 118(4), 610+. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Itkonen, T. (Fall 2007). PL 94-142: policy, evolution, and landscape shift. (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975). Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2), 7. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:

Keogh, B.K. (Fall 2007). Celebrating PL 94-142: the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. (Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975). Issues in Teacher Ecuation, 16(2), 65(5). Retrieved January 2, 2009, from General OneFile via Gale:

Lombardi, T. P. (Ed.). (1999). Policy and Practice Policy and Practice. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Macomb/St. Clair County Autism Society of America. (2004). Autism Awareness. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from the Web site:

Mainstreaming. (2006). In the World of Health. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from the Web site:

Meisel, C. J. (Ed.). (1986). Mainstreaming Handicapped Children Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

Tomsho, R. (2007, December 31). How a school in Florida got mainstreaming right. (cover story). Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, 250(153), A1 – A11. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from Business Source Alumni Edition database.

Zettel, J.J., & Ballard, J. (1979, August). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Journal of Education, 161(3), 6. Retrieved January 2, 2009, from Academic Search Alumni Education database.

Zigmond, N. (2003). Where Should Students with Disabilities Receive Special Education Services? Is One Place Better Than Another?. Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193+. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Questia database:

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download