Two SchoolBook posts on special education and inclusion last week — a post and WNYC radio report by Beth Fertig on deferred efforts to integrate students with learning disabilities into regular classrooms, and Cheryl M. Jorgensen's opinion post on why inclusion is good for all students — inspired a lively response to our related query.
Writers were split on the question of whether inclusion is the right solution for all children, and many shared their personal stories to support their argument.
Here are portions of some of the comments by educators and parents that were posted in response to our query. If you have more to add, you can join the conversation and respond to these comments in the query below.
Jennifer Moyer said her son was forced into inclusion in middle school:
I cringe every time an expert says everyone benefits from inclusion. And the idea that special needs students aren't ostracized in an inclusion classroom is bunk. The minute the other kids realize yours is different, the feeding frenzy begins.
Kai Krishna said inclusion is not a magic bullet for teaching special education students.
As the parent of two children across the autism spectrum and having many friends with children with autism, I can tell you that there is no magic bullet, and when people make blanket statements such as "Inclusion is good for everyone," then the individual needs of each child stops being taken into account. I think the push for full inclusion for all students is as dangerous as mandatory segregation.
And Scott Rhea said he is distrustful of anyone who is not in the classroom making a sweeping determination of what is right for every child:
I am not sure I want a college professor, federal agency, or advocacy group dictating best practice for a student receiving special education services. Remember, education is all about providing students with options — one of which could be inclusion. Special education is not a place; it is a service.
Teachers, too, like Hagar Sadan, who said she taught in a special education classroom in New York City, said it was wrong to see inclusion as the solution for every child, especially given the resources available.
Saying "all children should be in inclusion" does a big disservice to all children. In my current class there are 22 children, 8 of those with I.E.P.'s. All of them are doing great except one girl who has severe autism and mental retardation.
I am doing the best I can with little support from the administration, demands of curriculum and testing I have to fulfill. But being in this classroom is plain suffering for her and the other children.
But some said inclusion has multiple benefits for everyone. Wrote Katie Barnfield:
Inclusion is the best option. It is beneficial to all students, those with and without disabilities. Students with disabilities will benefit educationally and socially by learning the same material as their classmates and making friends and gaining the social skills they need to succeed in life. The students without disabilities will benefit from becoming more accepting of others, they will learn that everyone has strengths and that even though someone is different, everyone is human and should be treated respectfully.
Linda Quintanilha agreed.
My child is going to outlive me. Keeping her safe in a segregated environment is not going to give her the same opportunity to make friends who will become her natural support system when I am gone.
Many pointed out that inclusion is an ideal, but that it plays out in real-world circumstances — like class sizes that are too large. Wrote Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters, an advocacy group:
Inclusion is great if all students can have their needs addressed; unfortunately in most N.Y.C. schools the class sizes are very high, even the inclusion classes, which the D.O.E. has encouraged schools to grow to their maximum levels. This means classes of 28, 30 or more; few students especially those with special needs can reach their full potential in classes this large. The other issue is the ratio of special needs to gened kids; 40 percent or more is what D.O.E./S.E.D. is pushing for,
which most experts I've spoken to think is far too high.
A plurality of commenters said battles over educational philosophy lose sight of the fact that every child is different. Cynthia Cuprill wrote:
Students with special needs need special care with excellent teachers in a variety of levels of inclusion. Unfortunately, when we adopt new models it seems the new model is for everyone and decisions are NOT made specifically for the benefit of each student. They are made for the benefit of the school budget.
And both philosophies might work at different times for different children, Mark Halpert wrote:
Inclusion is the right long-term goal, but not always the right short-term strategy.
A few commenters, like Katherine Vroman, said the issue was bigger than inclusion or not inclusion, and likened the special education debate to the civil rights struggle.
It wasn't too long ago in our country's checkered past that other minority populations (women, racial or ethnic minorities, members of the L.G.B.T. community) were spoken about as "others." What if your child was excluded based on another manifestation of difference?
And Katy Franklin wrote:
I would also like to say that if you folks substituted the term "minority kids" with "special ed kids" — you'd realize how wrong and awful much of what you are writing sounds.
Dori Fern said the politics and atmosphere surrounding special education led her to take another way out.
Special ed is treated as one generalized mass of swept-under trash, at least in the N.Y.C. education system. I would rather fight the D.O.E. every year to fund my kid's "restrictive" private school education (and it is an epic fight for middle class families like ours) at a place where his learning needs (so-called "disabilities") are supported, than have his confidence battered year after year in the public school system. Been there, done that.