Full Inclusion versus Self-Contained or Special Schools

1132 Words5 Pages
Full Inclusion Versus Self-Contained or Special Schools The treatment of individuals with disabilities has changed dramatically since the 1800’s. Reynolds 1988, describes, Progressive inclusion, the evolution of services provided to those with various disabilities. In the early 1800’s residential institutions, or asylums were seem as common place accommodations for individuals with hearing, visual, mental or emotional impairments. Institutions remained the primary educational support until a century later in the early 1900’s. The parents of students with disabilities brought upon a legislation change. During the 1950’s and 1960’s, these parents pressured courts and legislatures to introduce a change in educational services. Reynolds…show more content…
In this case, a self-contained program or special school may be considered. Some individuals believe that inclusion settings may leave teachers with lacking resources, training and other supports necessary to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms. Tornillo 1994, believes that a student with extensive needs placed in an inclusion setting are not getting appropriate, specialized attention and care, and the regular students’ education is disrupted constantly. Tornillo 1994, also argues that teachers are required to direct excessive attention to a few students, thereby decreasing the amount of time and energy dissected towards the rest of the class. Therefore, the mandates for greater academic accountability and achievement are unable to be met. Mauro 2009 indicates placement in a self-contained classroom or special school means that the child would be removed from the general school population for all academic subjects to work in a controlled setting with a specialized teacher. Students in self-contained programs or special schools may be working at all different levels, with different textbooks, and different curricula. Self-contained classes and special schools offer structure, routine, and appropriate expectations according to Mauro 2009. Additionally, full inclusive models do not account for students who are unable to learn from a typical model of instruction. For example, a Deaf student who is unable to lip-read would require a full time interpreter and
Open Document