[ad_1]
The debate on how to educate special needs students in the US continues. Some argue for full inclusion, while others advocate for mainstreaming. Both methods can be effective if properly assessed and evaluated through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
Since the inception of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States in the 1970s, there has been much debate about how to effectively educate children with special needs. Some argue that special education students should spend their school days in a special resource room designed especially for them, while others argue that the best option for special needs students is inclusion, which places the student in the normal education class throughout the school day. Proponents of inclusion argue that it allows the student to mingle with the appropriate age level, reduces social stigma, and allows special education students the same educational opportunities as mainstream education students.
The idea of full inclusion – special education students staying in the regular classroom for the entire school day – has been met with skepticism from many people. Critics argue that full inclusion takes valuable resources away from the special education student, such as resource rooms and special educational aids such as computers and other accommodations. The regular education classroom will often not be equipped with these valuable resources, putting the special education student at a disadvantage. Additionally, regular classroom teachers are often unprepared or ill-equipped to handle the needs of many special education students throughout the school day. By placing a student in a fully inclusive environment, that student may not have access to the special education faculty best equipped to handle her needs.
Proponents of inclusion argue that the special education student has the right to spend the day in a regular classroom and shouldn’t have to “earn” to get out of a special education classroom. An alternative theory called mainstreaming places the student in the general education classroom for only certain subjects or part of the school day but not others. Proponents of inclusion argue that mainstreaming does not go far enough to allow special education students the same education as mainstream students and further argue that this technique increases social stigma. Inclusion would avoid such a scenario, allowing the special education student normal socialization and access to equal education.
The debate about how best to educate special education students still exists today. Both mainstreaming and full inclusion techniques are used in schools across the United States, and either method can be used effectively, provided that every single special education student is properly assessed and evaluated regularly. Schools must develop an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for special education students, and the best method for including the student in the general classroom is discussed at the IEP planning meeting.
[ad_2]