Talk:Inclusion (education)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This[edit]

This page seriously lacks references.

Agreed. It also reads like a personal opinion essay.
Best,
Rosmoran 09:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, it reads the same way to me. 168.215.245.19 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent work (27 November 2007)[edit]

Whatamidoing: That's a good solution to the USA legal thing. There's another specific USA reference - at least I assume it is - later in the entry: "K12". I'm not sure what this is. There's a sentence at the end of the progressive education section that doesn't belong there too, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Rowmn (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, K-12 is not just a U.S. designation, although it's certainly not used worldwide. (It means Kindergarten through the twelfth year, so school from about age 5 to about age 17.) However, inclusion advocates probably believe that both early childhood education and university should also be restructured to be inclusive, so I am not convinced that limiting the statement to normal primary and secondary school years is accurate.
The other sentence is harder. It's basically on topic and referenced (although it would be worth checking to see whether the reference actually supports that claim). Perhaps it would fit better at the end of the introduction. Or perhaps it belongs in a philosophy essay, and should be deleted from an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
OK that sentence is now at the end of the introduction. I'm happy that it's a statement of fact that inclusion is controversial. The reference only goes to someone else saying the same thing, so perhaps it shouldn't be a reference but just listed in the external links. Rowmn (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Undid some formatting that appeared to have been carried out randomly. Please accept apologies if someone did this with good intentions. My judgment is based partly on the notes that appear on the talk page for this IP address - which imply that there has been frequent vandalism from it. Rowmn (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

intro[edit]

I think that the intro confuses the purpose of this article. Is it just about students with special needs (like learning disabilities) or those of minority identities that may be the target of subtle bias in the classroom??? Hparten (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Hallie Parten

Arguably the most important part, seeing how small the attention span of readers is these days. That being said, I've read that in fact inclusion is used by school districts to include students with severe disabilites into gen ed classrooms, not those with mild to moderate disabilities as expounded here. I think this makes sense;look at the benefits section. I don't see it as a primary means of approach for students with learning disabilites, because there isn't much in the way that would reason to have them seperated from their peers. Anyone object if I change the intro a bit? Jim Steele (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed[edit]

I'm not sure how to make this actually fit, so I'm pulling it out for now. It seems odd.WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion remains a controversial concept in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of individual worth.[1]

Merge request[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: No merge. I have closed the merge proposal because there has been no support after six weeks from anyone except the nominator. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Original request posted at WP:RM: "Inclusion is simply another method of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. Special education is about the methods of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. It makes no sense to have another article for it. It only confuses the whole thing. It would make sense to have the inclusion article merged into the special education article. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC) "

This is a merge request not a requested move as originally posted so I have added the appropriate headers. Nonetheless, discuss away. — AjaxSmack 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the merge proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - as nominator. Inclusion is simply another method of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. Special education is about the methods of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. It makes no sense to have another article for it. It only confuses the whole thing. It would make sense to have the inclusion article merged into the special education article. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)



The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge proposal: Inclusive school[edit]

It appears that the term inclusive school is generally used to mean "any school that practices Inclusion (education)." Consequently, it's probably time to merge inclusive school into this article. If anyone has any objections, please share your concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to merge inclusion/mainstreaming to inclusive school. These two practices have the same goal, to help special needs students successfully transition to society. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Mainstreaming is a different practice and a different philosophy from inclusion. Mainstreaming (education) should not be merged into any inclusion-oriented article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So can inclusion be merged into inclusive school? Or does it have to be inclusive school be merged into inclusion? Esthertaffet (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It could go either way, but "inclusion" seems to be used more frequently in the reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I've done the merge. Much clean up and copyediting work now needs to be done, as well as matching some of the references with the statements they support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

source[edit]

I read: "Advocates for inclusion say that the long-term effects of typical students who are included with special needs students at a very young age have a heightened sensitivity to the challenges that others face, increased empathy and compassion, and improved leadership skills, which benefits all of society.[citation needed]"

In Giangreco, M.F., Cloninger, C.J.,& Iverson, V.S.(1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for Children (COACH): A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Plublishing Co., the authors discuss some research that pertains to the impact inclusion has on typical students. They suggest the earlier students in the general education population are exposed to students with disabilities--particularly those with severe needs--the more likely there is not only tolerance but genuine compassion in the crucial teen years increasing social and academic success for both groups. The later it happens, the less likely for any positive outcomes for both groups. Jim Steele (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Why don't you add it to the article?
It looks like I can't find ISBN 1557667071 (The Inclusion Facilitator's Guide), which is too bad. This article would really benefit from some solidly done research instead of relying so much on guesses about what "should" or "shouldn't" happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The last bit on "post-structuralist" perspectives on inclusion isn't necessary. I don't think we need to drag Derrida into this already big article! Playing semantics won't get us anywhere here, and I think that space would be best served with maybe some projections as to what inclusion may look like based on current trends and projects (I'll look for some verfiable research on this).

Jim Steele (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed an enormous amount of meaningless and marketing-oriented language during the merge, but I gave up after a while. Do, please, be bold and remove anything that seems doubtful to you or that seems to place WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority viewpoint. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The merge is a great improvement. I axed the post-structuralism bit. The source was dubious and although it may have some good points it's not adding anything to this article; actually it kind of throws the reader off, questioning just what it means to say "inclusion" and although it has merit it's philosophical conjecture not information based on research or practice.

Jim Steele (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Best practice[edit]

This text:

...students with mild to moderate special needs, for which is accepted as a best practice.[2]

was removed (without quite taking the entire ref text; I've cleaned that up). Is there any reason that the claim that inclusion of students with mild to moderate needs is a best practice has been removed? It would be unusual to see a child with, say, mild dyslexia being segregated in a special unit or self-contained classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

It was I who removed that bit. The reference was comparing inclusion vs. resource rooms. Although it did have some results that indicated the ICM was useful, the results could not be generalized. This is because the district had used the ICM before, and thus is not a good measure of how inclusion works at large. Moreover, the original text mentioned that inclusion is most effective (or used primarily) for students with mild to moderate disabilities and is best practice. In fact, research points to the fact that students with severe disabilites benefit most from inclusion (in fact, that would be considered "best practice"). I tried to add some sources that backed this up. Students with mild disabilities (e.g. mild dyslexia) benefit most from direct instruction via a resource room model to focus on those IEP goals, and are already part of the inclusion model. Unless the school ascribes to tracking, they are in heterogenous classes, and are with their peers (some of which perform higher then them academically, others not so much). I think the part and full inclusion section needs expansion. The way I see it inclusion is not an all or nothing decision. Jim Steele (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the relevant question is inclusion or resource rooms: Inclusion, taken as a broad concept, can encompass the use of a resource room, and even "full" inclusion can encompass direct instruction of a small group at a table in the general classroom (which should provide approximately the same benefits as doing that same direct instruction of the same students at a table in a physically separate room).
Do you think that (general) inclusion is not a best practice for students with mild to moderate disabilities? Do you think they are better off being mainstreamed (<50% of time each week in the general education classroom) or segregated (no time each week with non-disabled students)? (Another way of asking this question: Has someone hacked into your Wikipedia account?  ;-)
As for tracking: few schools in developed countries subscribe to tracking in the very youngest ages, but nearly all of them do so in the upper grades. This may be explicit (Germany, Japan) or subtle (teens with MR are "fully included" in the lowest levels of 'consumer math', not the honors calculus class), but it happens everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The literature suggests that inclusion is, as a definition, a concept that is a matter of interpretation. By that I mean, you are right it can include use of a resource room. Personally, I think inclusion has become a word schools use for lip service. What's important, in my mind, is to make sure students with disabilities receive the best services for their needs. Anyway to answer your question I think that inclusion is best practice for students with mild to moderate disabilities, but should be emphasized for students with severe disabilities. I added a couple of sources in the article to back this up. Hope it helped. I just wanted to make sure that first line in the article mentioned students with severe needs because they, by default, are the least likely to receive what is termed full inclusion because if you think about it they're are the most intensive, and thus are the most work for districts. And no, no one has hacked my account (I've had enough drama already!).

Jim Steele (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés[edit]

Le gouvernement français se trouve, concernant le handicap, devant une situation particulière qui n'est pas du tout désespérée, mais qui nécessite « du punch ». Nous allons montrer quelques points développant cette remarque d'actualité en décrivant le contexte international puis national de la scolarisation des enfants handicapés. Voir l'article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés Revue / Journal Title Pour ISSN 0245-9442 Source / Source 2007, no195, pp. 30-36 [7 page(s) (article)] Langue / Language Français Editeur / Publisher Revue POUR - Groupe de recherche pour l'éducation et la prospective, Paris, FRANCE --Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:38 (CET)--Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:38 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.252.166 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

merging mainstreaming with educational inclusion[edit]

I've re-brought-up the idea of merging this article with mainstreaming in education, but I already have a feeling I'm gonna encounter some resistance. According to what archives I've been able to come across here, there's a specific quote on the matter:

"Mainstreaming is a different practice and a different philosophy from inclusion. Mainstreaming (education) should not be merged into any inclusion-oriented article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)"

The trouble, of course, is that while many have said that educational mainstreaming and educational inclusion are two "totally different" concepts, their respective articles seem to demonstrate that they are substantially similar apart from the wording they use to describe themselves. Yes, it's true that "mainstreaming" is based perhaps more than a little bit in pity on the part of school administrators towards the disabled individuals they are trying to "mainstream" and thus it's more medical-modelish than it should be — whereas "inclusive education" might regard itself as the more "empowered" variety and might associate itself more closely with things like disability-rights inclusion politics. But even if that's all the case, it still leaves out what the actual encyclopedic definitions of "educational inclusion" and "educational mainstreaming" boil down to in their strictest senses. And in their strictest senses, these "two" schools seem frighteningly alike. And worthy of a merge. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

French[edit]

Le gouvernement français se trouve, concernant le handicap, devant une situation particulière qui n'est pas du tout désespérée, mais qui nécessite « du punch ». Nous allons montrer quelques points développant cette remarque d'actualité en décrivant le contexte international puis national de la scolarisation des enfants handicapés. Voir l'article de COURTAULT Michel : Note sur la scolarisation des enfants handicapés Revue / Journal Title Pour ISSN 0245-9442 Source / Source 2007, no195, pp. 30-36 [7 page(s) (article)] Langue / Language Français Editeur / Publisher Revue POUR - Groupe de recherche pour l'éducation et la prospective, Paris, FRANCE --Michel Courtault (d) 15 décembre 2009 à 17:34 (CET)--90.53.167.82 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We would be happy to have information about special education in France added to these articles, but you must write in English on these pages. If you need help with English, try the WP:EMBASSY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about reverts[edit]

I did edit the link to match that on the general Autism article. As a reminder, revert is not the default action. Improve what you can, revert only when necessary. I am happy for better or more references to be added, but it seems to me that more is trivia, while better is unknown to me at least. see talk @ "Autism" for further details. The reference is to the book on the topic. The link to the website about author's credentials. Perhaps the reason this page lacks references is because when people add something with appropriate references and links they are removed as spam?Reibwo (talk) 22:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But you continue to revert several editors who bring policy-based objections without improving a thing. Your edit appears to be unverifiable, somewhat spammy commentary about de Boer's book. Before restoring it again, please give a page number in de Boer's book where she states what you have added. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Indeed. Here's policy for you: 1. Don't revert just because the book does not live in your library. 2. Don't revert just because you disagree with the viewpoint of something said and "don't like it". Doing so under the guise of "policy" (see your reference above) is just another way not to follow the letter and spirit of the policy. 3. No one has to "check with you" or anyone on the talk page before making an edit. 4. Assume goodwill (making accusations of bias is NOT assuming goodwill). 5. Ownership is not allowed. 6. WP depends on bold editing for relevancy. The book referenced is by one of the leading experts in the field, and she is one of the most published in the field. The pages quoted are a summary of recent research on exactly the topic discussed. Stop quoting policy to justify stilting an article. Don't revert again if you can not follow policy yourself. I am not the author of the book, but even if I were, there would be nothing wrong with referencing my own work, or linking to my website to establish credentials. WP policy encourages both. Get over your rule enforcing self. No wonder there are so few willing to even venture here. The environment is toxic.Reibwo (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I pulled the relevant pages from the book, and the statement being made probably deserves a {{failed verification}} tag. Yes: These techniques exist and have been studied. No: The "recent significant works" [publications] hasn't "helped make inclusion in the general population more accessible" to anyone. Publications do not put children in classrooms. Furthermore, the cited source doesn't actually seem to say that the research has led to more students being included. Its primary focus is on what teachers say they need, which is (1) support from specialists and teacher aides and (2) training.
As a minor point, if you want to cite the book, rather than the website, then you need to {{cite book}}, like this:
{{cite book |author=Simpson, Richard L.; Sonja R. de Boer |title=Successful inclusion for students with autism: creating a complete, effective ASD inclusion program |publisher=Jossey-Bass |location=San Francisco |year=2009 |pages=38-42 |isbn=0-470-23080-0 }}
which will produce this:
  • Simpson, Richard L.; Sonja R. de Boer (2009). Successful inclusion for students with autism: creating a complete, effective ASD inclusion program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 38–42. ISBN 0-470-23080-0. 
Note that the author's website properly doesn't appear in such a citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This gets so tiresome. Improve the page if you want. Don't talk it to death. It would be good if you read the pages you "pulled". You have badly mis-characterized them. Read them again (or for the first time) if they don't make sense to you. The pages give a summary of the research on exactly this question.
Saying, "No: The "recent significant works" [publications] hasn't "helped make inclusion in the general population more accessible" to anyone." is insulting to anyone of the hundreds of children, those that work with them, and the schools they attend and the families that care for them. This is not a disputed point of research. These techniques are used daily and widely throughout the world to teach and include children with autism in the general classroom. They are widely considered the best practices in the field, the research backs that up, and the pages cited summarize these thoughts. Books (especially if people read them) detailing how to use these techniques certainly do make the possibility of the inclusion of these children more possible. If you want me to cite research that says books are an effective means of communicating ideas--then we have truly reached the ridiculous. Reibwo (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The book says "these things exist". The book does not say "these things helped make inclusion more accessible". That particular leap of logic is entirely yours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions[edit]

I think that we need to sort out our definitions again. At least in the US, "fully mainstreamed" is an oxymoron. By federal rules, a student must spend more than 50%, but less than 100%, of his time outside the general education classroom to be classified as mainstreamed -- and under federal rules, there's only the one definition. Under scholarly definitions, the issue of intent is added, but these definitions still require that the student be removed from the general education classroom for at least a small amount of time. Anyone who is never removed from the general education classroom is always called "included" (or "integrated", in some countries).

IMO there's no point in doing any further work here, until we can get these definitions sorted, so please show me sources that say, for example, that a student in a wheelchair with no cognitive differences, no need for special services, and no time outside the classroom is called "fully included" if the teacher has one attitude, but "fully mainstreamed" if the teacher has another attitude. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The proponents of mainstreaming is confusing the philosophy of inclusion to just the dictionary definition of inclusion. This is probably why we can't write a neutral article on the philosophy of inclusion. Phoebe4545 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The definition of inclusion says, "the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes for all or nearly all of the day instead of in special education classes". [1] That is correct. And mainstreaming is, "the practice of educating students with special needs in regular classes during specific time periods based on their skills". [2] This means that kids with special needs are in regular classes whenever possible. So it is correct. Phoebe4545 (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I think we should follow the federal rules, rather than scholarly definitions that tend to have a political agenda. It's not fair as full inclusion has never been studied extensively and when we use the scholarly definitions it appears that they attack full inclusion without much study into it. Phoebe4545 (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we agree that it is possible for the same teacher, in the same school, to "fully include" a student who uses a wheelchair by placing that student in the regular classroom 100% of the school year, but to "mainstream" a student with mental retardation by placing that student in the regular classroom only during story time and physical education classes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is most people agree that children with disabilities do not have a right to be in a regular classroom. And to use this reason by attacking inclusion is not right either. We should follow federal rules and the definitions that I provided. Phoebe4545 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Full inclusion is not to the extreme. According to all the sources, it never says that. Perhaps the supporters of mainstreaming believe that. But the purpose of this article is to keep it neutral on both sides. One student being included is not full inclusion; it's about integrating all kids as shown in the lead paragraph along with the source. Phoebe4545 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked a question that can be fully answered with either "yes" or "no", and while you have responded here, nothing you've said actually answers my question. Can you try again? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms[edit]

What's the protocol for addressing invalid criticisms? I can see they can help balance wiki articles, but I consider many of the points listed here to be wrong. MANY of the points in this article are wrong and outdated. This is a terribly one sided definition of full inclusion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinsmith79 (talkcontribs) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree. Terrible piece, not worthy of inclusion (no pun intended) on wikipedia or anywhere else. criticisms could start with the limiting of inclusion to disability / special needs and proceed from there... FWIW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.189.194 (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inclusion (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inclusion (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ [3] "Inclusion remains a controversial concept...", accessed October 14, 2007
  2. ^ Smith, Phil (Oct 2007). "Have We Made Any Progress? Including Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Regular Education Classrooms". Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 45: 297-309.