Arguments Against Full Inclusion

Arguments against Full Inclusion

Angie Webb

PHI 103

                            Instructor: Carter

November 14, 2010

      Should every special needs child, even those with severe disabilities be taught in the regular education classroom as their only educational setting?   A current trend in education called full inclusion would place all special needs children in the regular education classroom for the entire school day without regard to their ability to function in that setting.   Some believe that the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) gives these children the right to be in the general education classroom and many children are being successfully included for both social and academic purposes.   Others believe that it is better for severely handicapped children to be taught in special education classes where their individual needs are addressed by specially trained teachers.   Parents fear that their children will lose important support services if they are educated solely in the regular education class. Another fear is that their child will be ignored by a teacher who doesn’t know how to meet their needs. Many schools, principals, regular education teachers, special education teachers and paraprofessionals have not been properly prepared to meet the needs of severely handicapped children in the regular classroom.   Full inclusion is not the correct educational setting for every child because it will not meet the academic and social needs of every child.
    The theory of inclusion and the desire of some for full inclusion are based on two federal laws.   The Education for All Handicapped Children act was passed in 1975 when a report found that over 60 percent of the disabled children in the United States were not getting an appropriate education (Yell, 1998).   Before this law was passed very few disabled children were educated in public schools and those in public schools were educated in special education classes. They had very little contact...