Steve Kinney

Many of New York City’s public schools are making the move from self-contained classrooms to collaborative team teaching classrooms. Scholars, however, argue over the inclusion’s effectiveness. The article will define inclusive education; review some of the most common arguments for and against inclusion; and tie in the work of Lev Vygotsky to add more depth to the debate.

Inclusive education is founded on the philosophy that all children can learn and should be considered full-time participants in and members of the mainstream school community (Knight, 1999). Traditionally, the term inclusion focused on students with disabilities, both physical and neurological . The term, however, is not limited to this realm exclusively but may also include students who are risk of failure due to factors outside of school, those thought to be gifted and talented, along with those considered to be average learners. Inclusion does not deny the differences and needs of students, nor does it try to erase them. Instead, inclusion seeks to support students with needs in ways that allow them to function on par with their peers. All students, regardless of any of the factors mentioned, are included in the general education classroom.

Two alternatives to inclusion are self-contained classrooms and specialized schools. Traditionally, these two models have dominated the special education continuum of services. In the self-contained setting, students with special needs are segregated from the school community at large and are provided with an alternative curriculum deemed more appropriate for their needs. The inclusion philosophy contends that the myriad of settings currently available should be abolished and that all students should be educated with their peers in the same physical environment.

The inclusion movement got its start in 1975 shortly after Congress passed Public Law 94-142 — later known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) and eventually the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA mandated that all students have access to free and appropriate public education, be given as much access to the general education curriculum as possible, and be educated in “least restrictive environment” available.

Parents of children with severe disabilities who were displeased with their children being relegated to special schools took their case to court under the auspices of a civil rights issue rather than an educational one (Fleischer and Zames, 2001; Winzer 1993). The plaintiffs argued that separate schools denied their children their right to the full range of school experiences. They concluded that this practice was discriminatory and demanded their children be included in the regular, public school setting. The term “inclusion” was born.

Advocates of inclusion argue that the combination of skilled educators, adequate support services, and a strong commitment by administrators and parents can guarantee success for any student without the need of a separate location (Friend, 2006). In the inclusion setting, come to the general education classroom with all of the related and specialized services that they require for success (Knight, 1999).

Traditionally, inclusion is delivered through the collaborative team teaching model. In this model, two teachers, one general education teacher and one special education teacher, share responsibility for the class. The general education teacher is responsible for possessing a mastery of the content being taught. The special education teacher is responsible for having a mastery of available adaptations and being able to modify curriculum in a way that makes it accessible for all students.

Giorcelli (1995) outlines the following tenets as the philosophical basis for full inclusion: placement in a local neighborhood school; zero rejection philosophy; age and grade appropriate placements; the elimination of “special classes” co-operative learning methods practiced; and special education support given to regular education students if necessary.

Smith, Finn, and Dowdy (1993) add that 20 percent of students in the general education setting require special attention but are not officially labeled as “disabled” and therefore not eligible for special education services. Having a special education teacher in the room allows struggling students access to special education services without being legally mandated to receive them. The fruits of the collaboration between the general education and special education teachers are available for all who need them. Smith, Finn, and Dowdy argue that the current model for special education allows for children to be labeled either disabled or not disabled with no room in between. They site the over-representation of minorities in special education and suggest that their segregation from the school community at large may be discriminatory.

Marilyn Friend (2006), a strong proponent of inclusion, argues that benefits of attending school are greater than simply learning to read and write or do arithmetic. Schooling also consists of an implicit, or unwritten, curriculum that includes social interactions and other important, non-academic life skills. Friend goes on to argue that these skills are best learned organically with peers. She suggests that children with disabilities benefit from being exposed to a normal classroom environment. General education students model “normal” behavior. Conversely, general education students are exposed to students with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities from a very early age and are therefore more inclined to be sympathetic and understanding towards individual differences later in life.

Friend’s theory on the social benefits of inclusive education is similar to Lev Vygotsky’s research conducted seventy years earlier. Vygotsky believed that human development was as social as it was genetic. Social interactions play a leading role in a child’s cognitive development. According to Vygotsky, each psychological function “appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first, between people (inter-psychological), and then inside a child (intra-psychological)” (Vygotsky, 1978; Gindis, 1995). Learning socially from peers more capable in culturally relevant skills was the foundation of his educational and psychological theory.

Vygotsky also had very sophisticated views on the impact of physical and mental disabilities on development. He believed that disability was socially constructed . Vygotsky argued that abnormalities did not exist in a vacuum. Instead, they are not perceived as abnormal until they are brought into a social context. For Vygotsky, social interaction was essential for normal development. The disability’s themselves did not augment development. Instead, it is their influence on the child’s ability to engage in social interactions impact development. To Vygotsky, it was not necessarily the physical or neurological impairment that impeded development; it was the social consequences of those impairments (Gindis, 1995).

To illustrate this point, Vygotsky asserted that in nature, blindness was a more severe impairment than deafness. By contrast, in the social world, deafness was much more severe. Being deaf prevents developing a mastery of speech and limits the capacity for verbal communication (Gindis, 1995). As a result, deafness “disrupts a person’s social connections in a more substantial way than blindness” (Vygotsky, 1983). Vygotsky classified impairments into two categories: primary and secondary defects. Primary defects were those caused directly by the physical or neurological impairment. Secondary defects refer to the “distortions of higher psychological functions due to social factors” (Gindis, 1995).

Any physical handicap not only alters the child’s relationship with the world, but above all affects his interaction with people. Any organic defect is revealed as a social abnormality in behavior. It goes without question that blindness and deafness per se are biological factors. However, the teacher must deal not so much with the biological factors by themselves, but rather with their social consequences. When we have before us a blind boy as the object of education, then it is necessary to deal not so much with blindness by itself, as with those conflicts which arise for a blind child entering life (Vygotsky, 1983).

Vygotsky believed that educators should be less concerned with addressing primary defects and much more focused on alleviating the impact of secondary impacts. He believed the focus of remedial interventions should focus on developing social relationships and refining “cultural enlightenment.” Vygotsky believed that eliminating the stigma associated with disabilities should be a focus of special educators (Gindis, 1999; Vygotsky, 1995).

Inclusion seeks to release students with disabilities from special classes comprised exclusively of other students with disabilities and place them in the mainstream, general education setting where they can benefit from social interaction with peers with a higher degree of cultural capital and more general-accepted social skills. Inclusion also seeks to reduce the stigma associated with physical and neurological impairments by constructing them as commonplace and including them in the general community.

Vygotsky observed that when a child works with an adult or more advanced peer, he or she was more capable of expanding his or her cognitive horizons — that is, collaboration with a more advanced peer encourages the emergence and development of cognitive abilities still in their infancy. Vygotsky referred to this process as the zone of proximal development. Friend (2006) alludes to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development when making her argument for inclusion without referencing it directly. Traditionally, most student benefit from interaction with a teacher, parent, or other nurturing adult — certainly more than being left to their devices from infancy to adulthood.

Including students with disabilities with their peers in the general education classroom allows for more interactions to fall within the zone of proximal development. Also, by not isolating students with disabilities in self-contained classrooms or specialized schools, these students are given more access to mainstream culture — which Vygotsky (1978) believed was crucial for proper social development — or, in a more Jungian sense, increased access to the collective unconscious.

Although there is a great temptation for advocates of inclusion to rest their laurels on Vygotsky, they are wise to the resist that urge. Vygotsky was equally as critical of “unlawful segregation” of children based on characteristics such as physical or neurological impairment as he was of what he called “mindless mainstreaming.” Certainly, his earlier writings are in the with the belief system that guides the full inclusion movement.

Vygotsky stood in stern opposition of the lowered expectations and watered-down curriculum (Gindis, 1999) that has plagued the field of special education. He argued that it was vital that children with disabilities be included socially within their communities as a form of effective rehabilitation.
In his later works, however, Vygotsky began to deviate from his unwavering belief in what would later be called inclusion. He expressed concern that only an environment that was designed to be adaptive to the specific needs of individual children with disabilities would be effective in providing them with the skill set necessary to compensate for their disability as well as interact socially without influence from the disability or disabilities. He believed that specialized training and precise methods were necessary and that alternative means for development should be implemented. Gindis (1999) questions — that given Vygotsky’s insistence in on a special set of psychological tools, specially trained teachers, differentiated curriculum, and more time to learn — how realistically these demands can be met in the general education classroom.

The effects of inclusion are inconclusive. According to Waldron and McLeskey (1998), student with learning disabilities in an inclusion setting made greater academic progress than those in a traditional, self-contained setting . Key (2000) found that high school English students with disabilities also improved their academic performance. Marston (1996), on the other hand, found that students who received in-class support as part of a full inclusion model did not perform as well as those two were pulled-out and worked with in small groups on a regular basis. Similarly, Lingard (1994) found that intensive, small-group instruction had a greater impact on reading and spelling skills than in-class support alone.

Hornby (1999) found that relatively few of the objectives of inclusion are being met. According to Hornby after conducting seven major reviews of literature on inclusion, he concluded that “it appeared that greater educational attainment, increased social skills, reduced stigma, increased self-esteem, greater racial integration, improved parent involvement, and individualization of instruction did not result from including children [with disabilities] in mainstream schools.” While the basic tenets of inclusion are philosophically sound, there remains little evidence regarding its effectiveness.

The rhetoric invoked by advocates of full inclusion is compelling. There is something seductive about the fact that any student with the proper supports can succeed. However, it is hard not to believe that there is something missing between the rhetoric and the implementation. There seems to be a disconnect between the argument that all children can learn with the appropriate supports and what exactly those supports are. Knight (1999) suggests that simply placing a student with disabilities in the same physical location does not guarantee that inclusion will take place. Stigmatization of students with special needs will not cease to exist by the mere inclusion of a student with a disability. Explicit programs need to be put in place to teach the social and academic skills necessary for an understanding of individual differences.

While some proponents of inclusion carry the flag of “inclusion at all costs,” Mancini and Layton (2004) recommend that schools seriously consider the implications of putting into practice an inclusion model. They recommend that careful attention be paid to administrative understanding as well as teacher support and preparation and pragmatic details — i.e. planning time and schedules — before implementing an inclusion program (Friend, 2004). Praisner (2003) conducted a study where principals were surveyed on their views on inclusion. Only one in every five principals favored inclusive education. It should be noted however, that students in an inclusive setting were more successful in those schools where the principal had a positive outlook on inclusive education.

The integration of general and special education makes for odd bedfellows. For decades, general education and special education have co-existed separate of each other. Each had its own set of pedagogical tools and beliefs. As the inclusion movement grew and began to be implemented with greater frequency, the gap between the two began to close and the lines began to blur.

For the most part, the special education segment has had to accommodate the general education segment. A great deal of ink has been spilled on the topic of introducing an inclusion program into the general education setting. Much of that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Knight (1999) writes that teachers are not by and large disposed toward change. After reviewing an extensive amount of literature on the subject, he concludes that administrators attempting to implement the inclusion model in their schools can expect to face covert resistance from the faculty and that many teachers are hesitant about including students with special education services in their classroom because many of the questions associated with the specifics of teaching and learning in the inclusive setting have not yet been answered.

Conclusion

The inclusive education model can not be retrofitted to the existing school paradigm without limiting its potential positive effects — the same effects that make it worthwhile to implement in the first place. Schools that believe in the moral and ethical principles on which inclusion is based must rethink not only the way in which they approach special education, but also the way that they approach education in general. The theoretical frameworks offered by Vygotsky and others cannot be sampled a la carte. Rather, they must be considered in their entirety in order to be ultimately effective.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.