Inclusion
Inclusion is a concept which has developed in the education systems of several countries around the world in the last three decades. Inclusion is a concept which calls for an education approach whereby all students irrespective of their mental, social or physical abilities are placed together in a conventional classroom. The aim of inclusion is bringing about a togetherness feeling contrary to the divisive feel which was brought about by exclusion (Forest & Pearpoint 1). In such an approach, children with disabilities are given the chance of studying together with ‘normal’ children in the same classroom. Proponents of this concept argue that inclusion is good for education. However, it is important to acknowledge that inclusion has a dark side of it; which compromises on the objective of attaining quality education for all. The following paper argues why inclusion is not good for education (academic activities). The first point of argument will be its associated disadvantages to children with disabilities. On this point, four major arguments will be put forward. One of them is that inclusion tends to give precedence to socialization at the expense of education. On this aspect, it will be argued that it compromises on the quality of education delivered. Secondly, it will be argued that inclusion leads to a low self esteem to the students with disabilities. Thirdly, children with disabilities need special classrooms which have special facilities to enhance learning which would not be available in inclusion. Lastly, the children with disabilities are prone to being teased by the other children; which brings in a question with respect to the security of the students. The second point of argument will be with respect to the disadvantages of inclusion to regular students. Under this point, it will be argued that inclusion leads to the disruption of a normal learning process, it leads to resentment between the special and regular students. Lastly, it will be argued that it leads to negative influences. The last point of argument will be the negative effects of inclusion on teachers. On this point, it will be argued that inclusion leads to fear, need for additional training and problems in the control of a classroom environment. The paper will also give a contrary position; where it will argue that inclusion is good for education (for non academic activities). The paper will give arguments why inclusion is not good for academic activities in an educational setting.
One of the points under which arguments against inclusion are made is with respect to its negative effects on children with disabilities or any other child/ student with special needs as compared to the other students. One of the arguments made is that inclusion has a tendency to give more focus to socialization at the expense of education (Blankenship, Boon & Fore 3). On this point, it is important to note that inclusion places children with diverse abilities together in a single classroom. For this reasons, the major task which the education stakeholders especially the teacher have is to ensure that the diverse students are able to relate with each other well. This is only achieved through the encouraging and development of healthy socialization within the classroom. Owing to the fact that young students are curious in nature and are in the process of identifying themselves, it becomes a problem when they are compelled to associate with people whom they feel are different from them. For this reason, socialization efforts normally take precedence over education. This disadvantages the children with disabilities with respect to education since it is not given as much attention in the classroom as it is supposed to be given. Another argument against inclusion with respect to its effects on children with disabilities is the fact that it puts their safety at risk. On this point, it is important to acknowledge that children in their younger years of development are curious to explore their surroundings. Key to their surroundings is the demographics. Ideally a child will want to learn more about the people around him, the things which they can or cannot be able to do amongst other things. When such children learn that the children with disabilities cannot be able to do the same things as them, they normally tease them in addition to bullying them. On this aspect, it can be argued that inclusion tends to compromise on the safety of educational places which is one of the major objectives of education.
Still under the negative effects of inclusion on children with special needs, it can be argued that it does not provide the students with a conducive learning environment. It is important to acknowledge the fact that some children with disabilities need special facilities in the classroom for effective education to take place. For instance, children with mortal problems require special furniture so as to make them comfortable in the classroom. On the other hand, children with attention problems need classroom environments which are safe from exterior distractions. Generally, it can be appreciated that children with special needs need special education facilities in the classroom environment which are not available in inclusion (Sheehy & Duffy 91). Therefore, inclusion tends to compromise on the quality of education received by children with disabilities. The academic intensity in inclusion environments is not up to the education demands of disabled children. The last argument under the effects of inclusion on children with disabilities is that it destroys their self esteem. The aim of inclusion is to bring togetherness; to make disabled children have a feeling of belonging to the broader society. However, this is not achieved when the children tend to have a low self esteem as a result of the education environment presented by inclusion. Ideally, it can be appreciated that disabled children cannot be able to match the physical capabilities of the ‘normal students’. In some instances, the intellectual ability of the disabled children falls below the levels of other children. When they are placed in the same environment as the ‘normal children’, their self esteem falls drastically owing to the fact that they are due to compare themselves with the other children which ultimately counters the hopes of attaining quality education (Salend 27).
The second major point of argument against inclusion is its negative effects on regular educators. Under this point, it will be acknowledged that inclusion has negative effects on regular students. One of the negative effects of inclusion on regular students is that it leads to additional distraction (Forest & Pearpoint 35). The fact that accommodation for the special needs of disabled children needs to be cared for is enough reason to change the normal processes in the classroom. Moreover, the addition of extra guides or teachers in the classroom is a form of distraction to the regular students. In order to counter this, the students will need to be prepared for inclusion; a rigorous process which also provides distraction to the students. In addition to distraction, inclusion brings about a feeling of resentment to the regular students. This is brought about by the fact that the regular students become hysterical about the extra one of one attention given to special children as compared to themselves (Forest & Pearpoint 35). To the young minds, this seems like favourism. This ultimately leads to the creation of a sharp division in the class; the class of special children versus the regular students. This is the last thing that educators want to see in a classroom setup. This is due to the fact that division makes it hard for the education process to be carried out smoothly. Lastly, inclusion has an effect of influencing the regular students negatively. This is in instances whereby the regular students are mixed with students who had been previously excluded socially due to bad conduct. An example of this is including juvenile delinquents in a normal classroom scenario. In such instances, the regular students are prone to being influenced negatively by the delinquents. Although the intention of including the delinquents in a normal classroom scenario is not make them associated with the normal society, inclusion tends to result to moral decay of the regular students. The basic point which should be considered in such a move should be that exclusion was initially meant to reduce chances of negative influences to the regular students by the delinquents.
The last argument against inclusion is with respect to its influence on teachers. On this point, it can be acknowledged that inclusion instills fear in the teachers (Forest & Pearpoint 1). Ideally, inclusion is accompanied by change. Therefore, the teachers fear the change which results from inclusion. Inclusion calls for new ways of doing things. It calls for the adoption of competencies which enable teachers to be able to a carry out their activities efficiently; disseminating knowledge to the diverse students efficiently and equally. However, when a teacher is faced by fear, he/she is not able to perform his or her tasks appropriately, which ultimately leads to poor education. From this, it can be argued that inclusion has a negative effect on the career of a teacher. This calls for additional training and support. On this aspect, it can be appreciated that special education teachers undergo a different type of training as compared to other teachers. The special training equips the teachers with appropriate knowledge and skills to manage the demands which come about in special education. Due to inclusion, the regular teachers are compelled to undergo extra training so as to be able to provide good education to both the regular students and those with special needs. Moreover, the teachers have to source for support from relevant stakeholders so as to be able to undertake their activities successfully. On this point, it is also important to note that special education is normally more of a calling as opposed to a normal profession. For this reason, inclusion presents a teacher with working conditions which he or she might not have anticipated earlier which ultimately affects his or her ability to perform optimally. Lastly, inclusion demands that a teacher relinquishes his or her control over the class due to the incorporation of an extra teacher or guide to help the main teacher with the handling of the children with special needs (Forest & Pearpoint 39). Owing to the fact that the teachers previously enjoyed full control in the classroom, there is a tendency to feel reluctant and discomfort in giving it over. From this argument, it can be seen that inclusion provides a teacher with a totally different working environment which in turn affects his or her ability to perform owing to the demands which about with change.
Contrary to the arguments against inclusion which have been discussed above, it can be acknowledged that inclusion is good especially in non academic and social classes for instance drama, Physical Education and Art among others. There are various arguments for inclusion. The first argument is that inclusion provides a stimulating learning environment for both the regular and special children. The stimulating environment places the students at a better position to understand what is being learnt. This in turn has a positive effect on education (Wayne 6). High success levels are achieved particularly so in children with special needs who learn a lot from their regular peers. Secondly, inclusion leads to social integration between the children with special needs and the regular students. Inclusion enables both groups of students to acknowledge diversity in addition to finding unity in it (Ewjik 681). It is a common problem to see division between regular and disabled children. However, this division diminishes as inclusion sets in. inclusion provides the children with a chance to make friends from both sets which enhances their social spheres of life.
Another positive side of inclusion is that regular teachers are also provided with a chance of acknowledging diversity when they work with disabled children. From this, it can be seen that inclusion has a positive effect on the social lives of both the students and teachers. Inclusion also has a positive effect on the enhancement of communication, social and adaptive skills of disabled children. Generally, it can be appreciated that disabled children have problems in expressing themselves. Moreover, it is common for disabled children to find it hard to adapt themselves into the world. However, inclusion makes it easier for them to relate with other people efficiently. This follows the basic argument for inclusion which purports that the world is an inclusive sphere thereby requiring that every person in it lives in an included environment (Bailey & Plessis 428). This explains the reason as to why proponents of inclusion in education call for this concept. Inclusion also increases the self esteem of a disabled student (Berg 690). This occurs when the student realizes that he /she can be able to do the same things as regular students. The sense of achievement works well for the psychology of the child which ultimately enables him or her to raise his/her morale. This is very beneficial to the morale of the student. Another point for inclusion is that it is less costly than exclusion. Firstly, educating students in inclusion is cheaper, hence beneficial to the economy. Secondly, training inclusion teachers is also less costly that training exclusion teachers. The last argument for inclusion is that it provides a teacher with an opportunity to learn new teaching methods. This is beneficial to his or her career development in addition to personal development student (Berg 690).
In conclusion, it can be seen from this paper that their inclusion has its positive and negative points. The paper has discussed the negative side of inclusion, which give arguments against inclusion in three main points. The first point discussed is with respect to the effects of inclusion on children with disabilities. On this point, it was argued that inclusion leads to a low self esteem in the children, it compromises on their safety, it deprives the children off the chance of attaining quality education due to the lack of appropriate facilities and that it tends to give more focus to socialization as opposed to education which should be the sole objective of education. The second point upon which arguments against inclusion were made is with respect to the effects of inclusion on regular students. Under this point, it was argued that inclusion leads to disruption of the learning, it also leads to resentment between the special and the regular students and it may also lead to negative influences. The last point discussed in the paper is with respect to the effects of inclusion on teachers. Under this point, it was argued that inclusion leads to fear, it also leads to need for more training and lastly it leads to discomfort and reluctance in giving over the control of the classroom. The paper has also given a counter argument which indicates that inclusion is especially in non academic and social classes. From this paper, it can be concluded that inclusion is not good for education.
Works Cited
Bailey, J., & Plessis, D., Understanding Principals’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive Schooling, Journal of Educational Administration, 35.5 (1997) 428-438.
Blankenship, T., Boon, R. T., & Fore, C.. (2007). Inclusion and Placement Decisions for Students with Special Needs: A Historical Analysis of Relevant Statutory and Case Law, Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2.1 (2007) 1-10
Berg, S., The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities into Regular Education Classrooms, University of Winconsin Stout. 2004. Print
Ewjik, A., Diversity and Diversity Policy: Diving into Fundamental Differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24. 5 (2011) 680-694
Hayden, C., Responding to Exclusion from School in England. Journal of Educational Administration, 41. 6 (2003): 626-639
Forest, M., & Pearpoint, J., Inclusion! The Bigger Picture, Inclusion Articles, (n.d) Web Accessed 11th May 201 from http://www.inclusion.com/artbiggerpicture.html
Salend, S., Creating Inclusive Classrooms; Effectice and Reflective Practices. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Prentice Hall. 2001. Print
Sheehy, K., & Duffy, H., (2009). Attitudes to Makaton in the ages on integration and inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 24.2, (2009): 91–102.
Wayne, V., Listening to include, International Journal of Inclusive Education, (2007), 1 - 15
