The Dots
The Dots
Log in
Join
Join now for free

INCLUSION VERSUS SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION

INCLUSION VERSUS SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION by Russell Cartee
Inclusion can be understood in various ways. In the broadest sense, it is about contributing to the realization of an inclusive society… concerned with the serious issue of who is included and who is excluded within education and society generally (Barton, 2003, p. 14).
This definition is aligned with Education Queensland (2005, p. 5), which states that “to become active and productive citizens in a just and democratic society, students need to experience democracy in the classrooms and in school organization.” Indeed, translated in the school setting, full inclusion “provides the opportunity for educators and school administrators to develop an environment that reflects societal ideas – equality without discrimination” (Pivik, McComas, & LaFlamme 2002, p. 105). On a very practical, classroom level, “inclusion involves keeping special education students in regular classrooms, where they can use college paper writing service or other auxiliary services, and bringing support services to the child rather than bringing the child to support services” (Smelter, Rasch, & Yudewitz, 1994).
In contrast, segregation is expressed as “a self-contained classroom…filled with students who have a particular or any number of disabilities” (Dixon, 2005, p. 34). Segregated classrooms are criticized mainly because they are seen to marginalize students with disabilities to the extent that instead of concentrating on who a student really is as a person and on his or her strengths, a student’s disability becomes the focus of his or her education (Dixon, 2005). Clearly the concept of segregation is at complete odds with the concept of inclusion described above – it does not contribute to the realization of an inclusive society, it does not allow students to experience democracy in school organization and in the classroom, it fails to reflect societal ideas of equality without discrimination and it is all about bringing students to support services.
“Mainstreaming” and “integration” are also incongruent with the concept of inclusion. They are synonymous terms used to describe the situation in which students with disabilities spend part of their time with typical students, but still spend part of their day in segregated, special educational environments (Dixon, 2005). “Mainstreaming removes students who are not functioning well in general education classes and returns them when they are able to function academically and socially” (Snyder, Garriott & Aylor, 2001, 199). That is, “the student must “earn” his or her opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to “keep up” with the work assigned by the regular classroom teacher” (Huston & Schultz Stout, 2007, 1).
The aforementioned definitions of inclusion indicate that integration and inclusion are also ideologically at odds with each other, making Dixon’s (2005, p. 38) argument that “integrated classrooms might be considered a happy medium between segregated and inclusive classrooms” highly questionable. Broadly speaking, “inclusion is 100% placement in general education” (Idol, 1997, p. 384) whereas integration, by definition is not. At its core, integration is about assimilating students into existing structures, while inclusion involves transforming deep structural barriers, such as the definitions of ‘ability’, ‘success’ and ‘failure’ (Whitty, 2002; Gillborn and Youdell, 2000). Moreover, the underlying assumptions of integration and inclusion are polar opposites. Integration assumes that a student’s participation in the majority group is in accordance with standards set by the dominant system, while inclusion implies a unified system of education that encompasses all students equitably (Dixon, 2005). Finally, integration views students who do not fit into the system as having something wrong with them, while inclusion enables the school system to change to cater to the learning needs and differences in students (Alaverdyan & Simon, 2009). In other words, integration facilitates students adapting to classrooms, while inclusion facilitates classrooms adapting to students.
In light of the above discussion, we can understand why Topping (In Print) argues that the definition of inclusion is still unclear and remains under-theorized. Nevertheless, a working definition of inclusion is required within the context of defining and addressing barriers to inclusion. Considering that the discussion will mainly focus on the school setting, we will adhere to the practical definition of inclusion described above. Simply put, “inclusive education (social model) is a process of increasing the presence, participation, and achievement of all students in schools” (Alaverdyan & Simon, 2009, p. 2).
INCLUSION VERSUS SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION by Russell Cartee
Report

Skills

RC
writer