Inclusion: Making it Work

Inclusion: Making it Work

         "Full inclusion" is a term used by educators to describe a philosophical approach to the education of children with disabilities. Inclusion refers to including all students in the general education classroom even those with severe disabilities (Kearney, 1996). Inclusion has become a very controversial issue in the public education system. Several opinions have developed that argue against inclusion and claim that it doesn’t work. However, the question of does inclusion work should not be at the forefront of our minds but rather how can we make it work. Questioning whether a student should be involved should never be an issue because the answer should always be yes. When debating the merits of inclusion many opponents site student disability, lack of teacher training and the potential consequence of compromising the education of the general population. However I believe these arguments are misdirected and inclusion fails due to instructional inadequacy. Academic success for all students can be achieved through inclusion if teachers and administrators take responsibility and make the effort to implement differentiated instructional strategies.

         Arguments have been made that due to the severity of some student disabilities inclusion would not be beneficial because of the rigor involved in the general education classes (Rogers, 1993, pp. 1-4). In other words some students with disabilities would be unable to perform the required tasks. Cheryl M. Jorgenson stated that “we should assume that poor performance is due to instructional inadequacy rather than to student deficits” (Jorgenson, 2013). When entering the education profession it is common knowledge that no one student learns the same and that teachers will be required on a regular basis to proactively find and implement various instructional strategies to ensure that all the diverse needs of the classroom are being met. When a student is not performing the responsibility should lie with the teacher rather than saying the student is incapable (Mcdonnell, 2001, pp. 141-160). Our focus should never solely lie on a student’s deficits but rather their strengths. All students are capable of learning the material if teachers plan instruction according to student strengths rather than labeling them as disabled or incapable.

         It can be assumed that, Yes all students can learn in the general education classroom if the teacher is making a valiant effort to differentiate their instruction. However, some still argue that general education teachers lack the appropriate training to teach students with special needs (Shanker, 1994, pp. 18-21). Several teachers have shared their frustrations about working in their school that has moved to full inclusion because they felt that they were lacking the appropriate training (Ratcliff, 2009,pp. 8-11). Does this mean that inclusion can’t work? No, it only means that teachers should be receiving additional trainings. Whether a school is moving toward full inclusion or not teachers should be receiving and seeking out professional development opportunities associated with the special populations. No class will ever be a cookie cutter class; therefore, all teachers should have the appropriate training to be prepared for all possibilities. The lack of training is not evidence enough to claim that inclusion will not work. Instead we should ask why school districts are not providing teachers with the appropriate training to make it work.

         Another concern that arises from the idea of inclusion is does it compromise the education of the other students in the class. Those challenging the proposal of full inclusion argue that students with special education needs take up the majority of the attention from the teacher at the expense of the general education students which may unintentionally lower expectations. However there has been a considerable amount of research that shows that inclusive education has shown a positive effect on general education students and achievement levels (Ruijs, 2010, pp. 351-390). When teachers are required to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of a particular student other students may also benefit from the same strategy. General Education students have also shown success because the inclusion setting allows them to set their own pace allowing them to surpass other students. “If children with special needs require more teacher attention, teachers could make more use of independent working for the other students which could enable intelligent children to make more progress in inclusive education because they do not have to ‘wait’ for their classmates.” (Ruijs, 2010, pp.353). However some may argue that this is not suitable evidence because not all students would benefit from this strategy. An inclusive classroom would experience a wide range of learning effects because of the vast amount of learning needs. How can anyone with 100% certainty claim that all students would be successful? I believe that this is why the skills and the knowledge of the teacher are important. A teacher must know each of their students so that they may adjust the instruction appropriately.

         Arguments against inclusion all have very valid points and all need to be addressed. Should these problems stop schools from providing a learning environment where all students are involved and receiving equal opportunities? The process of inclusion may not be an easy task but it’s not an impossible one. If teachers have the ability to provide such an environment that includes every student, why would be arguing against that possibility rather than searching for the answers to making it happen. We will never have enough research to include every possibility we will encounter in the classroom but a great teacher takes the time to learn about his or her students as individuals to identify the diverse needs and then adapts. When teachers make the decision that we teach for the sake of our students and put what they need first Inclusion works.

Works Cited
Kearney, K. (1996). Highly Gifted Children in Full Inclusion. Highly Gifted Children, 12(4).
Jorgenson, C. (2013, January 1). Inclusion Works! Part 1. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from http://www.ndsccenter.org/resources/general-information/ds-news-articles/inclusi...
Ratcliff, O. (2009). Voices of Classroom Manager: Their Realities of Full Inclusion. Electric Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(4), 2-15.
Rogers, J. (1993). The Inclusion Revolution. Phi Delta Kapa Research. (11), 1-4.
Ruijs, N., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. (2010). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs. Educational Research, 52(4), 351-390.
Shanker, A. (1994). Full Inclusion is Neither Free nor Appropriate. The Inclusive School,52(4), 18-21.
Mcdonnell, J., & Mathot-Buckner, C. (2001). Supporting the Inclusion of Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Junior High School General Education Classes: The Effects of Classwide Peer Tutoring, Multi-Element Curriculum, and Accommodations.Education and Treatment of Children, 24(2), 141-60.