Regular education classrooms Essay

All students participate in regular education classrooms except students with the most severe disabilities who would be in normalized and age-appropriate classroom on the same campus. Few students are excluded. Level IV – Despite the degree of disability, all students are fully included in general education classrooms. Specialists and teaching assistants provide support for students with the most severe disabilities within the classroom. The regular education teacher is responsible for structuring social interactions with typical peers. The least inclusive proposal places most students with mild disabilities in regular classes, but excludes those with moderate through severe disabilities, placing them in separate rooms within the regular school building (Lilly, 1986). This proposal is closest to the traditional manner of service delivery and is the easiest to implement in terms of using available special educators as support personnel and providing training in methods for regular education teachers to include these children. More inclusive is the proposal to place students with mild or moderate disabilities in regular education classes (Reynolds & Wang, 1983; Wang, Reynolds & Walburg, 1987). The essence and meaning of inclusion evolved from the historical concepts in early childhood special education, that is, mainstreaming and integration. Bricker (1995) discusses the evolution of these terms, noting that mainstreaming refers to the â€Å"reentry of children with mild disabilities be served totally in these settings eliminating the need for pull-out programs. While students with organically-based learning disabilities or moderately demonstrated behavioral disorders would not have been included in regular education rooms in the Level I proposal, they would be included here. Yet, proponents of both levels agree that there will be students with severe and/or multiple disabilities whose needs will not be served optimally in a mainstream environment. They feel that these students will need to participate full-time in separate settings. Level III includes a more extensive involvement of severely impaired students in regular education. All students are included except those who are unable to be involved in academic or social interactions (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). However, even these students would participate in nearby classrooms which would be as normalized and age-appropriate as possible. The most extreme view is that of full inclusionists, who propose that all students should participate in general education classes. Claiming that to do otherwise would be to support a â€Å"dual-system† for the most disabled, Level IV proponents propose the integration of even profoundly-impaired students into totally normalized classes (Stainback & Stainback, 1984). This position has prompted the strongest reaction of implausibility from those opposed to the Regular Education Initiative. Yet parents and professionals supporting Level IV inclusion do acknowledge that there are situations in which these students cannot be grouped with other s because of instructional differences. Thus, the Regular Education Initiative gives a sense of inclusion for students. Yet, a number of researchers and educators have opposed the Regular Education Initiative strongly. They cite the historical inability and lack of desire of regular education to meet students’ needs. That is the reason why the IDEA cropped up. They worry about the loss of funding and parental right. They also note that most regular educators are not trained to have students with disabilities in their classes. They say that teachers cannot meet societal demands for excellence if they are expected to have vastly different levels of student academic and behavioral performance in their classes. Supporters of inclusion differ in the extent of disability integrated into regular education classes. Some support placement only of students with mild disabilities in regular education, with students demonstrating more severe impairments participating on the regular education campus, but in separate impairments participating on the regular education campus, but in separate classes. The continuum expands to include students with more severe impairments in regular classrooms on a part-time basis, to the full exclusionists, who would have all students participate full-time despite the degree of disability. The problem is how to incorporate students into classes where teachers and nondisabled peers are welcoming as well as competent in dealing with difference. Thus, the debate continues. This paper looks into these inclusionary practices and explores how these are helpful for all concerned. Enormous amount of research has been made to explore the factors associated with caring for a disabled children and the deleterious effects these factors have on parents’ well-being. Research evidences points out that the family attitude greatly contributes to the prognosis. Risk factors such as lack of services and negative attitudes can have an adverse influence on the prognosis of the mentally-handicapped child. Obtainable studies show that most often parents have a negative attitude towards their child with mental disabilities. Parents are weighed down with feelings of pessimism, hostility, and shame. Denial, grief, withdrawal, rejection, projection of blame and finally, acceptance are the usual parental reactions. (Drew CJ, Logan DR, Hardman ML. )