Should schools mainstream special ed students?

In October, November, and again in December, The Wall Street Journal ran articles--two of them on the front page--on special education in the U.S. The first article looked at the history of parents asking taxpayers to pay for private school tuition for special-needs children when the local public school district was unable to meet those students' specific needs. The second article looked at a backlash by parents and teachers against the increasingly popular practice of mainstreaming special education students. The third highlighted districts' decisions to place special needs students in mainstream classrooms based on the cost savings such a move engenders. The articles both fit into a larger ongoing discussion in the blogosphere of mainstreaming these students and touched off new conversations about students' needs and taxpayers' responsibility to meet those needs. Here's a roundup of the conversations women--parents, teachers, administrators, and others--are having about mainstreaming.

Kelly Gorski gets directly to the heart of the issue:

Some students who are mainstreamed can learn in a regular education environment and then seek external assistance through learning support teachers; other students, however, with more immediate needs, cannot or will not be their own self-advocates and therefore, help will be given too little too late.

In media, the kid in the wheelchair has become a kind of mascot, beloved by all in his gang, but this is only a fragile and idealized image. In a real-life classroom where all of the children are non-disabled except the one who drools uncontrollably, who hears voices, blurts inappropriate statements out, or who can’t read a simple sentence when everyone else can, further isolates himself, becomes secluded, will not ask for aid, and eventually close up to any other assistance offered since he/she is already branded “stupid.”

If these students feel the world is against them, and that if they open their mouth they will be ridiculed, it is easier for them to escape by pretending to be invisible and only look as if they understand. Regular and special education teachers can only do so much for a disabled student who will not open up, or who are smart enough to fake comprehension.

(Gorski has written more on the issue here).

Anne at the blog "Mainstreaming: A Special Education Debate" offers both a blog post analyzing the issue and a concise rundown (in the blog's sidebar) of the advantages and liabilities of mainstreaming. She points us to even more aspects of the debate delineated at Raven's Guide to Special Education, which includes these pros and cons:

Arguments for mainstreaming

It is nearly impossible to achieve socialization in abnormal settings.

Instruction and training given in segregated settings do not prepare students for participating in integrated settings.

Regular education teachers trained in mainstreaming techniques will be more effective in dealing with non-disabled students having exceptional problems.

Disabled and non-disabled students will learn to understand and appreciate each other by attending the same classroom.

Special needs students who have not been given special education labels already are in regular classrooms.

Mainstreaming can help special education students develop self-confidence, new skills, and greater independence.

Mainstreaming can help non-disabled students appreciate individual differences and become comfortable with disabled students.

Arguments against mainstreaming

Not every disabled student can benefit from mainstreaming.

If not done well, mainstreaming may result in greater prejudice, stereotyping, and rejection of a disabled student.

Placing a disabled student in a regular classroom without adequate support may demand so much teacher attention that other students will be neglected.

Large class sizes interfere with the ability of regular teachers to meet the needs of both disabled and non-disabled students.

Mainstreaming is being forced through legal actions without considering the appropriateness of the placement.

Many regular teachers are poorly prepared to meet the needs of disabled students placed in their classrooms.

Many administrators do not provide adequate support to regular teachers receiving disabled students.

The Baltimore Sun reprinted one of the WSJ articles on its blog, and the piece drew some passionate and informed comments from readers. Artie commented that mainstreaming, under the keyword "inclusion," has become a hot trend in K-12 education--but it's a trend that too often ignores the specific academic and behavioral needs of individual students:

The term "inclusion" has become so "the thing" in public schools that too many students are often pushed into the "mainstream" classroom before they are ready. There are two issues that I always considered during IEP meetings. For the majority of the children with an IEP, intelligence was not the problem at all! They very easily could compete with and even do better academically than many of the regular education students. I will always remember one of my favorite students my second year teaching was a young man with an IEP full of various recommendations. That young man was the only student I had, in both years of teaching, who never got below a 95 each grading quarter.

The other main issue, however, is behavior. For some of the children with disability, the disability does not affect their academic skills, but does prevent them from feeling comfortable in a big classroom setting with upwards of 35 students and only one teacher available to help them all. I always lovingly said that all my students in my BCPSS "mainstream" classroom were special - just some were more special than others.

Maria, a special education teacher who blogs at at Disability Rants, protests a "one size fits all" approach to education, an approach that she feels was expanded by No Child Left Behind:

One of the reasons I became a Special Education teacher is that I thought I could tailor my students education to their specific needs. I felt that was ideal for any child but in Special Ed. I actually was given permission to do so. I believed in giving my students a good education with opportunities for them participate with their general education peers when appropriate. Afterall, I had been mainstreamed myself--so I knew given the right circumstances it could work. I never believed in standardized testing for general education or special education students. That's a subject for another blog. The point is, I liked SPED because it gave me the chance to opt my students out of standardized tests.

Then NCLB happened. On top of that, the consent decree specific to my district. This all happened not even 5 years into my becoming a teacher. All of a sudden, I was required to teach grade level standards to students 2 or more years behind in their education regardless of their readiness for grade level work and completely disregarding the fact that they may have just been placed in SPED because they had been failing for years already. Also, in order to give my students "equal access" to grade level work by mainstreaming them even if they really were not ready emotionall, behaviorally or academically. I sincerely believe in mainstreaming--I do. But it should be at the discretion of the ones who know the student best--the teachers and parents. It should not come as a blanket statement form a faceless government who does not know the face of my students."

Finally, what's a roundup without a reference to another roundup? Estee Klar-Wolfond of the Joy of Autism blog brings together comments from others on the subject of inclusive education.

Want to learn more about special education issues and special education students? A Special Education Teacher in Washington, DC has a terrific list of resources--including video and slide presentations--in her blog's sidebar.

In reading various blog posts and comments on mainstreaming, I was interested to note that people on both sides of the debate used the phrase "up to the challenge" to describe both students and teachers. Students may not be "up to the challenge" of a mainstream class. Teachers without special ed credentials may not be "up to the challenge" of integrating special-needs students and meeting their needs. What's your opinion? Who's really not "up to the challenge" here--students, parents, teachers, districts, state boards of education, the federal government, or all of the above?

Leslie Madsen-Brooks helps university faculty improve their teaching. She blogs at The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and The Multicultural Toy Box.

Submitted by Leslie Madsen Brooks (view blog

) on Sat, 12/29/2007 - 22:37

Posted In

Comments (3)

Tell a Friend

Comments

mainstreaming

I live in Canada, so my knowledge of the system in the USA is limited. However, I have been special ed paraprofessional for 15 years and I have a special needs child myself.

There is no "one size fits all" approach for special needs children. There are a huge range of disabilites that fall under special ed, and all are a spectrum. Some may prevent mainstreaming, and some may not. Mainstreaming may be more feasible when a child is younger, and not so much when a child reaches beyond grade four. It truely depends on the situation.

I have two major frustrations as a parent.

1-teachers who have little knowledge about various disabilities 'diagnosing' kids when they have neither the expertise nor the credentials to do so...just a workshop and checklist. This is dangerous and results in children that are medicated and/or put into completely inappropriate programs.

2-teachers who have "tunnel vision" (ie-I've been doing it this way for 20 years and I'm not changing my methods or allowing a child adaptations because they could do it if they just tried harder). My child has the intelligence. He simply has a physical disability that doesn't allow him to write like everyone else. Without that adaptation, one is denying his right to an education. It will not change if he "tries harder".

However, because he looks normal, many people do not believe it is "real".

I do agree that teachers are not given enough support and/or training to properly support special needs children in their classrooms. It can even vary from district to district. The issue where I live, I believe, is that it's the children who bring in the funding-the ones with the visable disabilities, are who recieve the most assistance/support from the district.

The ones that are learning disabled, no matter how severely, are the ones that are left behind. They are at the bottom of that funding list.

Unless of course, they become a behavior problem and then they qualify for more funding. Because to the kids, it's better to look bad then stupid.

That is, if they don't drop out, or get kicked out, first.

The strange thing is that universities and colleges here in BC recognize learning disabilities and my dyslexic husband was asked, "What do you need? Reader? Scribe? Extra time? Let us know." However , we had to fight tooth and nail for every adaptation for our son, who has a diagnosed Learning disability, and dyspraxia.

If my child was in a wheelchair, we never would have had that problem.

Submitted by scatteredmom on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 01:21

They just have to do it properly

I've had special needs students around me in various ways. I was teaching adults for a while and tutoring special needs adults. A woman with a form of cerebral palsy had someone to be a scribe but didn't need much else. Mind you she didn't realise that. She'd grown up thinking she was stupid. Made such a comment to me after I'd been working with her for a few weeks. I told her it wasn't so. I knew from working with here that she could understand me when I was talking at a normal adult level and when I asked her questions she could answer slowly but normally with a normal level of understanding. She just couldn't use her hands. She got real happy real fast. I had trouble believing she'd never been told that.

An acquaintance from several years ago had a kid with CP, she was about 6. I use to give her back massages to help with her muscle spasms. Her mother hadn't realised that her back was hurting. She also had some level of separation from her disabled daughter and hadn't been able to see the intelligence in her eyes. I said to the kid, with her mother there, 'you understand more that everyone realises, don't you?' hoping to trigger something in her mother. I don't know how she's going, I've lost contact. Her mother just wasn't sending her to school. Her CP was bad enough that she couldn't talk but she was trying to communicate.

I'm part of a support group for a woman with an intellectual disability and behaviour problems. She's not easy and as a result has been very badly neglected most of her life. She's in a good situation now, being taken care of in a very secure way, and being encouraged to work through programs that should mean she'll be able to live in the community again in the future. We all had to fight like hell to get her taken care of. She very nearly became a homeless street person because her workers 'couldn't cope'.

She ended up having a daughter. It turns out her kid has the same disabilities. The difference is that she's in a great foster family who won't neglect and abuse her. Her life will be complicated, but not nearly as complicated as her mothers. She is getting early training to control her behaviour rather that being neglected with the attitude 'leave her alone, she can't help it'. There is still a fight ahead though - she's going to school. A mainstream school. She's suppose to have support at this school from a special needs teacher. It turns out the teacher has an attitude that is all too common: people with ID are always sweet and nice. Actually, the sweet ones are lovely to work with. And this kid has great sweet moments as does her mother. But she has very challenging moments as well. It's true she can't help it, but it's also true she needs training from people who know what they're doing. This teacher, last I heard a few weeks ago, was about to be told that not being able to cope with this kid wasn't an option. She has a job to do. Her only options are to get extra training so she can cope or go work in a part of the industry that only does sweet people with ID. Full stop. Her foster mother is a great and tough woman. She will fight this with our help.

No one expects this kid to do great things with her life but she does deserve the chance to become the best person she can be and to live in an accepting community and be cared about and not be ostracised.

That is the really huge main reason all these kids deserve mainstream schooling. The problem isn't the kids or whether they are 'up to the challenge'. Geez, give me a break, they're kids! The problem is inadequate training and support of adults working with them. And sometimes inadequate responsibility in the people who are trained. It's not a matter of whether kids will gain benefit from it because the benefit can't really be quantified. "If it's not done well..." shouldn't be a consideration - it has to be done well. If individual people are not up to the job they should get out and make room for those who can do it. If a kid is being ostracised or bullied at school I'd suggest the school doesn't have adequate policies in place and doesn't monitor and train their kids properly. Argue with the schools, threaten them, and if that doesn't make them pull up their socks sue the pants off them. They have a duty of care.

These kids need to be mainstreamed, not just for themselves, but for the sake of this often sad and cowardly society. Every single person on this planet needs to be able to come to terms with disabilities and that won't happen by locking these kids away.

Ah, sorry for the length of this, but the issue has struck a nerve.

Submitted by jjulesss on Sun, 12/30/2007 - 13:42

No costs should be spared or can be saved

Good article. Both my children were in the I-class (integrated class) during their public grade school years (grade 1-4). The I-class has less children (<24) than the other non-I-classes (<30), but up to five special needs children in the class. There are usually two teachers in the classroom at all times. Both of the teachers have received professional training for the integrative class concept.

The idea is that each child receives a support to learn at his or her capability. My children, not special needs children, were properly challenged throughout their grade school years. Those who learn quickly are as equally challenged as those who will never be able to read or write.

The special needs children were not only those with physical disabilities, but also those with mental, physiological, behavioural, and cognitive disabilities. The difference between the I-class and the non-I-class is that, in the I-class the children with learning challenges have been diagnosed and there is an open dialog between teachers and all the parents in the class, whereas in the non-I-class there are also children with learning difficulties, but often the parents of these children do not want to admit this and the teachers are too overtaxed or under-qualified to cope with the problems or behaviour of these children.

I have only praise for a mainstream system that offers both I-classes and non-I classes, but not if the school system does this out of cost grounds. It is not less expensive; it is utopia to think so. Do you remember when we thought computers would save costs and time? Well, introducing special need students into the mainstream requires time, expense, care, and effort.

lia from luebeck, germany

Author of the yum yum cafe and coauthor of the Red Tent Blog.

Submitted by Lia on Wed, 01/02/2008 - 01:10