Abstract
The American education has been plagued with a number of issues in the recent past including school violence, increased school drop-out rates and inequity in to mainstream education access (Apple, 2008). While reforms have been continuously undertaken, they have not addressed the plight of children with special needs. Other than the introduction of the inclusion project and accompanying “No child left behind act,” little progresses have be made by the schools to integrate children with special needs into the mainstream classrooms. Students are still subjected to inequity with regard to educational opportunities and processes (Apple, 2008). A careful review of literature and the existing frameworks on the same reveals several loopholes that have denied these children equal access to mainstream education and hence perpetuate inequality. Architecture of the educational system has additionally made it impossible for schools to provide equal opportunities to students, more so considering the heavy investment required for apparatus used by children with special needs. The financial barrier to attainment of equity in elementary institutions in America further compounds the challenge. Children from well-off families are likely to access better opportunities than those from poor families. This paper has critically looked into various factors which contribute to inequitable access to education for children with special needs.
Hook
Inclusion program is attractive for families who want the best for their children. This has done little but to widen the gap between mainstream access of education by children with special needs and those without special needs.
Purpose
The paper sets out to identify factors that suggest federal mandates and other school reform efforts centered on serving children with special needs still do not provide equitable educational learning opportunities.
Significance
Educational inclusion is part of the American dream proposed by its founding fathers (Theoharis, 2007). For America to regain its integrity and position as an educational leader globally, inequity in elementary schools must be addressed (MacKinnon, 2000). It acts as a reference tool to all the stakeholders in the education system and hence help facilitate reforms tom ensure equitable access to education.
Taking the reader through the paper
First I will describe key aspects of inequity in elementary schools. Next, I will discuss the historical changes in educational changes that touch on equity issues with special focus on children with special needs. Thirdly, I explore the impact of these historical changes and the increasing gaps between children with special needs and children in the mainstream. Lastly, I will highlight probable measures to address the aforementioned issues and strategies to ensure children with special needs are afforded equitable opportunities in American public schools.
Subheadings for your literature review
- Historical development of education with respect to students with disabilities
- Inequity issues arising in elementary schools in America with regard to students with special needs.
- Acts that are insensitive and hostile to equity issues affecting students with special needs;
- Biased application of educational curriculum;
- Unreasonable inequalities in attention accorded by the teachers;
- Curriculum materials that are biased;
- Unreasonable inequalities in provided instructional time;
- Biased attitudes to children with special needs;
- Failure to hire adequate professional educators and school staff to cater for the students with special needs;
- Funding inequities.
- Measures to curb inequity
- Failures and successes of existing measures
Brief Discussion
In addition to the various problems cited as within the American public education systems, this article furthers extant research by focusing on the insufficiency within existing frameworks that promote oppressive school practices for children with special needs
is yet another critical piece of literature that focuses on insufficiency in existing frameworks to ensure equity in elementary schools for students with special needs (Riester et al, 2002). These inequities range from classroom climate to pedagogy to legislative reform has failed to bridge these gaps due to inadequate funding (Conway, Mackay, & Yorke, 2007). The need for stakeholders to come together and develop strategies that will address these challenges is urgent. While the government is doubling up its efforts, other stakeholders too must play their role. It is of utmost importance that all stakeholders take this as a moral rather than a legal obligation if milestone have to be achieved (Sapon-Shevin, 2003: MacKinnon, 2000). After all, teaching is a calling not a profession.
Brief Implications
The research indicates that children with special needs are still subject to in equality in American elementary schools. For schools and the government to adequately eliminate these inequities in American elementary schools, there is need for all stakeholders to adequately play roles beyond theirs. Change must incorporate both the higher and the lower ranks (Bogotch, 2002). Government must ensure that legislations put in place to cater for such are appropriately implemented by the schools, not just in policy but at classroom levels (Bogotch, 2002). Leadership must also pay its role and avail necessary funding for infrastructural development in the area.
Literature review
Introduction
Inclusive education is a subject of great debate amongst disability studies scholars who espouse a social model of disability. The social model sees the disabling practices of society as the cause of disability rather than the individual with the impairment (Oliver, 1998; Barnes & Mercer, 1996). Where society puts up barriers, like stairs for wheelchair users or exam time constraints for people with learning difficulties, it produces disability and inequity in provision of that service. When educational institutions design spaces, lectures or activities to incorporate people with impairments, then these people will not be disabled but included (Conway, Mackay, & Yorke, 2007).
A social model of service provision would determine ways to make all aspects of university life accessible from the outset. In order for elementary learning institutions to embrace this model the physical, learning and assessment environments would have to be wholly accessible. In the current climate, if there is a service for students with disabilities there must, by implication, is a need for accommodations? The logical outcome of this argument is that social model services are an oxymoron (Gibbs, 2004). In an ideal world there would be no need for this type of service because all aspects of elementary life would be accessible. One question that probably we need to ask is whether elementary schools in America live to their word and provide these services to the students with disabilities (Alur, 2002). Do they have equitable access to facilities that support their access to education?
Educational reforms in America
Horace once stated that “Education is the great equalizer of men’s conditions and the wheel that balances social machinery (Reagan 2).” All Education reforms have centered on social and economic change. For instance, Education policies sympathetic to mathematics and science have enormously bolstered development in the United States (Ryan 1). However, the system is still riddled with challenges that call for reforms. In the recent past, the number of students dropping out of school in America has been on the rise. Statistics indicate that up to 1.2 million pupils who join high school fail to graduate from it four years later (Balfanz and Legters 42). While educational reforms remain prime to reforms in education systems in America, the students with disabilities remain a neglected group and continuously have to endure various social injustices in schools. Inequity in access to learning opportunities remains a top t the social injustices these students have to endure.
Historically, development of equal and just systems has always been the prime drivers for most reforms. Societal norms and systems have always attempted to ensure that that the system is as balanced as possible. However, this remains a mirage. Despite failure to achieve this and attempts by various persons to block this attempt, efforts have been constantly made to achieve the same. Various persons have often asserted that quality basic education is a fundamental human right (Alur, 2002). However, many students in American elementary schools are denied this right due to inequities within the system of American education. This is party attributed to the inequities resulting from limited education access by these students.
Early educational; reforms in America are classified based on the colonial and post colonial times. Both have had little to do with education and more to do with management. Students suffering overt disabilities physically and developmentally often have to be cared by their families. By the early nineteenth century, institutions for children with disabilities had already been established. After the 20th century though, education for the children with disability was heavily funded to the tune of up to $4.9 billion through a national program (Smith, 2007). These programs were primarily concerned with recognition of educational disabilities, and compensate them, rather than facilitate access to equal educational opportunities. Other similar programs have over time been focused on social management of these students rather than facilitating their equal access to learning opportunities in schools. Additionally, no clear policy focusing on elementary schools has been put in place to ensure equity in access to learning opportunities is eliminated.
The coming into force of the No Child Left behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was viewed as a measure that would ensure inclusion of the children with disability. However, this bill has grossly failed to address the challenges that students with special needs. In a new York times, a woman allegedly complained of having waited unsuccessfully for her mentally disturbed child to be graded alongside others only to be informed that children with special needs are not graded (Dillon, 2010) This is an example of the insufficiency of the act to address the plight of the children with disabilities. From the historically perspective, no more needs to be said for one to understand that children with learning disability in American elementary school are continuously subjected to inequitable opportunities in access to mainstream education. Inequity in access to learning opportunities in elementary schools can be simply defined as lack of inclusion into elementary education program.
Inequity issues arising in elementary schools in America with regard to students with special needs
The problem of non-inclusion of the students with special needs in elementary education in America cannot be overstated (Smith, 2007). While government policies state that all students must be taken school as a fundamental right, the policies fail to offer a framework and support to would ensure that the children with special needs in elementary schools access learning opportunities as equitable as their other counterparts. Perhaps the failure occurs when equitable access is defined as equal access where the students are allowed access to similar facilities. Equity demands that each student is allowed access to a facility and process that sufficiently meets his learning needs (Smith, 2007). This is taking into consideration the fact that these students have different needs as compared to the others. These factors include insensitive and hostile acts to student with special needs issues, Biased application of educational curriculum, Unreasonable inequalities in attention accorded by the teachers, Curriculum materials that are biased, Unreasonable inequalities in provided instructional time, Biased attitudes to children with special needs, Failure to hire adequate professional educators and school staff to cater for the students with special needs and finally, Funding inequities (Apple, 2008).
Acts which are insensitive and hostile to equity issues affecting students with special needs
Most educational acts affecting students in elementary schools fail to address the needs of students with special needs (Apple, 2008). Most mention that all students must have access to equal educational opportunities but fail to define equality in a context that suits the needs of students with special needs (Ainscow, 1999). A good example is the no child left behind act which fails to specifically address equity issues regarding education access by the students with special needs. Similarly in the American rehabilitation act of 1973, discrimination on basis of disability is prohibited (Smith, 2007). However nor clear measures are defined to ensure that the students access equal education opportunities. The acts article rather focuses on standard based educational access which at times may no be applicable to special cases of children with disability.
Biased application of educational curriculum
Curriculum application in American schools is suited for children with no disabilities. Basically, children with special needs in American elementary schools lack specified curriculum designed to reflect their needs. Often teachers are advised to develop individualized learning programs. However most elementary schools cannot shoulder the cost of availing specific teachers to this and hence the students are forced to fit with the existing curriculum unless their parents are well off to pay for the same (Apple, 2008). In the end the curriculum is applied in a biased manner to the children with special needs. This ensures that these children are not able to access the education they needs as they counterparts do as the curriculum being applied is not suited for them.
Unreasonable inequalities in attention accorded by the teachers
Most elementary schools are unable to employ specific teachers deal with individual cases of students with special needs. This forces the students with special needs to have to make d with the attention that the teacher accords to students in general (Bogotch, 2002). This is in disregard of the fact that these groups of stents need more individualize attention. Additionally, it is important to note that teachers often consider these children unable to do well in education and end up concentrating more on the other student’s at the expense of this group of students (Apple, 2008). Lack of attention amount inequitable access to education for the children with disabilities as this is one other ways in which they can aces education.
Curriculum materials that are biased
Curriculum materials used in elementary schools directly biases against students with special needs. The materials are specifically architectured for children without special needs. They do little to allow students with special needs to access education as equitably as the other children do. Generally, the schools have failed to come up with curriculum that is more inclusive to the children with earning disabilities. The centrality of curriculum design laves little or no room for teachers to adequately offer the children with learning education with better access to education (Theoharis, 2007). Focus an emphasis lays on mainstream education of the children withy no disabilities. The content of the curriculum therefore is inaccessible and de-motivating to the students with learning disability. There is need that curriculum material recognizes that specific learning and teaching materials need to be availed for education needs, interests and aspirations of children with special needs (Smith, 2007). Assessment in inclusive education elementary school settings need to focus on curriculum aims that are broad and allow assessment of students with special needs based on their individual achievements.
Unreasonable inequalities in provided instructional time
Provisions of learning time in educational setting are often a rather tricky. Including the children with disabilities within learning environments often results into a challenge in allocation of time (Riester, Pursch, & Skrla, 2002). The learning time needed by children with learning disability is often extensive as compared to that needed by their counterparts. Curriculum designers often work on the assumption that the time needed by the students without special needs is the right time. This ends up rendering the children with special needs unable to keep up with the pace of learning and hence barred from accessing education equitably.
Biased attitudes to children with special needs
Most teachers enjoy teaching students with who are quick are take a short time to grasp the content being taught. The attitudes displayed by some elementary school teacher have the potential of subjecting the students to emotional bullying which hinders their ability to access education (Apple, 2008). Elementary teachers consider these children unable to learn and disregard them in terms of education, only focusing on their social welfare (MacKinnon, 2000). Negative attitudes by the teachers’ amount o social discrimination of the students education-wise and hence amount to inequity in education by the involved parties.
Failure to hire adequate professional educators and school staff to cater for the students with special needs
Some schools have failed to hire qualified educators and staff who are able to facilitate the learning endeavors of these children. Teacher’s with no adequate training background lack skills necessary to impart knowledge on the students with special needs (Smith, 1992). This amounts to denial of equity in access to education of these as the other kids are provided with teachers who are well qualified to meet the needs of the other stents while they don’t get the same. Additionally, educators have been known to flee their jobs and seek better paying jobs due to inadequacy of the pays they receive from the elementary schools. Consequently professional teachers end up lacking denying of equitable access to education by the children with learning disability.
Funding inequities
The key issue in education in public schools resolves around how and where funds are allocated. State government has primary control of the distribution of funds since they provide the majority of funds while the Federal revenues, which make up less than 10% of all school revenues, are designed to supplement state and local resources Elementary schools funding by the government has failed to take consideration of the plight of the children with disability in this schools (Booth, 1996). Often government releases uniform funds to the schools regardless of the fact that the needs f the students with disabilities heavily differ from those of students without special needs. In essence this renders the schools unable to specifically engage measures that facilitate that facilitate equitable access of to learning by the students with disabilities. Schools end up lacking adequate facilities, materials and human resource to assist these children fit into the educational system comfortable (Deno 1970). The students are therefore forced to fit within the learning environment provide for children without special needs.
In general, plenty of literature exists that cite the plight of children with learning disability in elementary schools in America. However, little evidence exists to show that the stakeholders have attempted to put in place measures to ensure that these students access education as equitable as their counterparts. The need for stakeholders to come together and raft workable solutions cannot be reinforced more than these literature materials have done for a lengthy period of time.
Failures and successes of existing measures
Existing measure have failed to specifically control the gap in educational access between the children with special needs and the children without special needs. Funding especially, has failed to facilitate purchase of physical equipment and hiring of specialized teachers to accord the children with special needs individualized attention.
Measures to curb inequity in elementary schools
As mentioned, curbing the rising cases of inequity in education with respect to the children with special needs begins with availing of adequate funds to the elementary schools. This would not only facilitate buying of equipment for the disabled but also allow hiring of adequate personnel to help the children with disabilities access to education (Smith, 2007). More importantly, policy makers should consult with the stakeholders on bets methods of developing curriculums that would adequately address the needs of the children with special needs. Professional teachers should be hired to handle the children with disabilities and additionally, the teachers should be engaged in regular training and workshops/forums where they discuss and share the best practices in educating children with special needs.
Conclusion
Practical application of policy framework is important and urgent. As time lapses, the divide continues and other forms of social injustices emerge (Carlson & Stephens, 2006). Urgency is therefore need if the much needed educational for all is to be attained. Equality in education must not be interpreted to mean equal infrastructure, curriculum and teaching access (Bell, Jones, & Johnson, 2002). Rather it should be interpreted within reason to ensure that all students access what they need to learn. The need to put in place realistic inclusive education is high. Inclusive education would help education provide the children with disability a right to quality education access. Creation of realistic education policies is necessary and must incorporate all stakeholders’ views in education curriculum development and system architecture.
References
Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. Oxford, Routledge.
Alur, M. (2002). Education and Children with Special Needs: from Segregation to Inclusion, New Delhi: Sage Publications
Apple, M.W. (2008). Teacher assessment ignores social injustice. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 65(2), p 24-28.
Bell, G. C., Jones, E.B. & Johnson, J. F. (2002). School reform: Equal expectations on an uneven playing field. Journal of School Leadership, 12 (3), 317-336.
Bogotch, I. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership, 12 (2), 138 – 156.
Booth, T. (1996). A Perspective on Inclusion from England. Cambridge. Journal of Education, 26 (1), p 87-99.
Carlson, P. & Stephens, T. (2006). Cultural bias and identification of behaviorally disordered children. International Journal of Educational Management, 45(3), 191-198.
Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (2007). Strategic planning in elementary education: Who are the customers? International Journal of Educational Management, 8 (6), p 29-36.
Deno E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 54 (2), p 229-237.
Dillon, Sam. (2010). “Children with learning disability: should they be evaluated against the others.” New York Times.
MacKinnon, D. (2000). Equity, leadership, and schooling. Exceptional Education Canada, 10 (1-2), 5-21.
Riester, A.F., Pursch, V. & Skrla L. (2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school success for children from low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12 (3), 281-304.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion a matter of social justice. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 25- 28
Smith, S.R. (2007). Addressing social injustices through critical reflection. Journal of Research in Educational Leadership, 47 (1), p 48-51.
Smith, W. J. (1992). The funding of inclusive education: A case study of critical policy issues. Exceptionality Education Canada, 1(12), p 49-75.
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2) 228-251.