Evaluating Myself in a Supported Classroom

Before our group began, we decided to collaborate our personal definitions of mainstreaming. We agreed that putting all children in a general classroom would be our definition of mainstreaming. We had a much tougher time defining inclusion, however. Based on our personal experiences in the classroom, we decided that inclusion was defined as pulling special needs children out of the general classroom for part of the day. Since we each had personal experience observing this method of pulling children out of the classroom so that they may attend a particular service such as speech, behavior management, remedial reading, ESL, etc., we had an intense discussion on the variety of services special needs children receive. We wondered how, with so many such services, would the schools be able to implement all of them to make inclusion and mainstreaming a fair and equal opportunity for every child.

The need for such array of trained professionals and collaborators is quite large. Since the schools have such an increased special needs population, not only are an increasing number of specifically trained professionals needed, but an increasing number of specifically designed technologies are needed as well. How will the schools be able to accommodate them all? We would have to find a way to pay for the technology and collaboration costs as well.

The time it takes to provide necessary technology and attention is quite remarkable. When considering an all inclusive, mainstreamed classroom, we have to remember that we must take personal attention into account. Things like helping a special needs student get dressed, toileting needs, and other domestics require an increased number of teacher's aides in every classroom. Also, it is often the case that aides spend more time with the child than the teacher does. Without a teacher's aide for every mainstreamed classroom, the pace of the general class's learning may be slowed. Since aides and teachers are not always qualified to teach special needs students, there is an obvious increase in the stress placed on the teacher and aide.

The mainstreamed student also has an increased level of stress as she tries to understand the material that the rest of the class understands and as she waits for the teacher to address her questions in such a way that the child will grasp the information. For a child with roadblocks, this can be a hard barrier to overcome.

The most common complaint that each of us in our group heard was that the children being pulled from the regular classroom to receive special services often complained of missing the material the rest of the class was learning in their absence. Often new material was being introduced (which left the special needs child already at a disadvantage), material was often being reviewed (which gave the child another disadvantage), and sometimes they were missing tests, which meant the child had to make up the material at a later time, sometimes during recess or other constructive time.

To administer missed testing and give the child the missed material, the teacher again has to modify her curriculum. Just to ease her burden, teachers may opt to have the child pulled from the general classroom more often.

By evaluating myself in such a classroom, I can completely understand the need and support of special needs children to be included in the general classroom. Their self-esteem and social skills are often enhanced (though this is not always the case.) In a more practical view as a teacher with such a diverse classroom, it is often quite difficult to accomplish everything in a timely manner. If there were more creativity allowed and less of a push for getting things done on a checklist, then mainstreaming would be much easier.

The other groups that discussed charter schools, standardized testing, and ability grouping all had their own pros and cons, and it was interesting to see how thorough each of them was. The presentation process itself was a fascinating one because everyone's topic is in some way inter-related. The assignment was obviously well thought out as everyone was able to contribute in some way not only researched information, but personal opinion as well. To top the entire assignment off, the catch was that we had to present the material to a hypothetical classroom and incorporate a particular learning style into the method we would use to teach the material to our peers. This proved to be much more difficult than anticipated, but was realistic none-the-less, because the response we got from our own peers would be similar to the roadblocks we might experience in our own classroom. Motivating students to join the discussion, to contribute and participate, and to solicit enthusiasm is not as easy as it looks. Every one has a different learning style, and everyone will take with them a different piece of the information the instructor is trying to teach. The trick is, getting all of your students to take with them the specific material that they need in order to go on to further topics and discussion.

The fact that I was able to defend the cons of our topic was quite fitting for my personal view based on the ten-month experience I had in a classroom that was filled with special needs children. (Head Start) The bottom line, in my opinion, is that times have changed since mainstreaming and inclusion was first introduced. The "one size fits all" approach may not be as easy as we think it is, and may not be as realistic as we want to believe. We have to be very selective with whom we mainstream, as some children may not even prefer or be capable of being in an all-inclusive classroom.

Before our group began, we decided to collaborate our personal definitions of mainstreaming. We agreed that putting all children in a general classroom would be our definition of mainstreaming. We had a much tougher time defining inclusion, however. Based on our personal experiences in the classroom, we decided that inclusion was defined as pulling special needs children out of the general classroom for part of the day. Since we each had personal experience observing this method of pulling children out of the classroom so that they may attend a particular service such as speech, behavior management, remedial reading, ESL, etc., we had an intense discussion on the variety of services special needs children receive. We wondered how, with so many such services, would the schools be able to implement all of them to make inclusion and mainstreaming a fair and equal opportunity for every child.

The need for such array of trained professionals and collaborators is quite large. Since the schools have such an increased special needs population, not only are an increasing number of specifically trained professionals needed, but an increasing number of specifically designed technologies are needed as well. How will the schools be able to accommodate them all? We would have to find a way to pay for the technology and collaboration costs as well.

The time it takes to provide necessary technology and attention is quite remarkable. When considering an all inclusive, mainstreamed classroom, we have to remember that we must take personal attention into account. Things like helping a special needs student get dressed, toileting needs, and other domestics require an increased number of teacher's aides in every classroom. Also, it is often the case that aides spend more time with the child than the teacher does. Without a teacher's aide for every mainstreamed classroom, the pace of the general class's learning may be slowed. Since aides and teachers are not always qualified to teach special needs students, there is an obvious increase in the stress placed on the teacher and aide.

The mainstreamed student also has an increased level of stress as she tries to understand the material that the rest of the class understands and as she waits for the teacher to address her questions in such a way that the child will grasp the information. For a child with roadblocks, this can be a hard barrier to overcome.

The most common complaint that each of us in our group heard was that the children being pulled from the regular classroom to receive special services often complained of missing the material the rest of the class was learning in their absence. Often new material was being introduced (which left the special needs child already at a disadvantage), material was often being reviewed (which gave the child another disadvantage), and sometimes they were missing tests, which meant the child had to make up the material at a later time, sometimes during recess or other constructive time.

To administer missed testing and give the child the missed material, the teacher again has to modify her curriculum. Just to ease her burden, teachers may opt to have the child pulled from the general classroom more often.

By evaluating myself in such a classroom, I can completely understand the need and support of special needs children to be included in the general classroom. Their self-esteem and social skills are often enhanced (though this is not always the case.) In a more practical view as a teacher with such a diverse classroom, it is often quite difficult to accomplish everything in a timely manner. If there were more creativity allowed and less of a push for getting things done on a checklist, then mainstreaming would be much easier.

The other groups that discussed charter schools, standardized testing, and ability grouping all had their own pros and cons, and it was interesting to see how thorough each of them was. The presentation process itself was a fascinating one because everyone's topic is in some way inter-related. The assignment was obviously well thought out as everyone was able to contribute in some way not only researched information, but personal opinion as well. To top the entire assignment off, the catch was that we had to present the material to a hypothetical classroom and incorporate a particular learning style into the method we would use to teach the material to our peers. This proved to be much more difficult than anticipated, but was realistic none-the-less, because the response we got from our own peers would be similar to the roadblocks we might experience in our own classroom. Motivating students to join the discussion, to contribute and participate, and to solicit enthusiasm is not as easy as it looks. Every one has a different learning style, and everyone will take with them a different piece of the information the instructor is trying to teach. The trick is, getting all of your students to take with them the specific material that they need in order to go on to further topics and discussion.

The fact that I was able to defend the cons of our topic was quite fitting for my personal view based on the ten-month experience I had in a classroom that was filled with special needs children. (Head Start) The bottom line, in my opinion, is that times have changed since mainstreaming and inclusion was first introduced. The "one size fits all" approach may not be as easy as we think it is, and may not be as realistic as we want to believe. We have to be very selective with whom we mainstream, as some children may not even prefer or be capable of being in an all-inclusive classroom.