The Least Restrictive Environment for a Deaf Child is the Regular Classroom: Pro and Con

speed xnargument_2-1

1. I want to have conclusion and summary for the paper I attached to you. The conclusion and summary have to connected with the paper I attached. 2. This is a paper for a presentation. The paper is supposed to wrap up all the introduction, pro, and con.

Topic: The Least Restrictive Environment for a Deaf Child is the Regular Classroom

In the United States, legislation drives Special Education services. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the primary federal law that authorizes educational services for students with qualifying disabilities.  IDEA was reauthorized in 2004 as Public Law 108-446 under the 108th Congress.  IDEA outlines student placement issues through Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirements.  LRE means that, given supplementary aids and services, students are to be educated with their nondisabled peers in their neighborhood schools, to the maximum extent appropriate.  The language “maximum extent appropriate” leaves school placement decisions to be interpreted for each student.

Pro Argument: LRE Inclusive Setting for Deaf Students

Education in a public school is the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for deaf students. There are several types of mainstream opportunities on a public school campus. Full inclusion allows the deaf child to be among all his peers for the entire school day. He would take classes alongside hearing peers in a regular education
classroom. Inclusion with pullout services provides the deaf child with instruction in a mainstream classroom with additional services, such as speech and language. A Special Day Class (SDC) groups the deaf students in one classroom for instructional minutes. The deaf students still have access to all of the activities offered on campus with their hearing peers.

“Whether due to their characteristics at program entrance or their academic progress, deaf children in full mainstreaming or inclusion settings tend to take more advanced courses than students in residential or special school settings.” (Marschark, Lang, Albertini page 147) The primary purpose of a school is to educate the child.
One could also argue that full inclusion is the setting most reflective of the larger world the deaf student will encounter. The deaf child will have greater interactions with hearing people through their peers and teachers.

Full inclusion with pullout services allows the deaf student to be included in mainstream academic classes while providing adjunct services. The deaf child will still have access to the general education instruction. At the same time any additional needs, such as speech and language, will be met. The deaf child will continue to have significant interactions with hearing peers and teachers.

The SDC classroom provides the most support to the deaf student while remaining on a public school campus. The student would take the majority, if not all, academic classes in a separate classroom for deaf students. The deaf student that needs the most support in communication would get intensive services while still having access to the larger hearing population. The student would get the services needed while provided the opportunities to interact with hearing peers on a regular basis.

There are various programs and models available to deaf students on a public school campus. The choice of which is best depends on the particular needs of the deaf child. They all provide daily access to the larger hearing community through hearing peers and teachers. The public school campus is the LRE for deaf students.

Con Argument

  The practice of putting deaf students into a regular classroom is in compliance with IDEA and the LRE.  Deaf students are entitled to the same education as their hearing peers. Inclusion or being placed in a regular classroom with hearing peers is considered the least restrictive environment for deaf students. While inclusion is wonderful and has been proven to be beneficial to both deaf and hearing students; it does have its share of problems.

  One of the problems with placing deaf students in regular mainstream classes is that deaf students don’t fully integrate with their hearing peers and school at large. Studies have shown that deaf students “in mainstream settings report problems of self-identity, emotional security, and establishing friendships (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993; Stinson & Lang, 1994; cf. Furstenburg & Doyal, 1994. 138).  Deaf students also have difficulties and frustrations with interacting with their hearing peers and may over time not want to attempt to communicate with hearing peers, thus fostering dependence on teachers, translators or aids, and fellow deaf peers.  

  Other problems with mainstreaming are that deaf students have to be pulled out of their regular classes for various reasons. This can cause further stigmatization and isolation. Also being frequently pulled out of classrooms for speech therapy or other needs reduces the time spent in the general classroom, which makes it even more difficult for deaf students to fully integrate academically and socially.

  Besides isolation from their hearing peers, deaf students in mainstream classes don’t get the quality education that they deserve. Unfortunately most public schools can’t provide deaf students with a quality education due to lack of funds and the lack of properly trained staff.

  Ultimately inclusion or mainstreaming works but it is not for all deaf students. Ultimately it is up to parents to decide which educational program best suits their deaf child’s needs.

http://www.newsforparents.org/experts_inclusion_pros_cons.html

Con argument

“The place where a child is educated does not make instruction effective. Rather, it is the content and method of instruction that are most likely to result in improvement in the child’s language, social skills, and other behaviors.”
“Public schools are sometimes unable to provide the specialized education required for children… It is unrealistic to expect that regular education teachers will always have the specific training required for this population, be aware of the latest research, or be able to readily adapt the school’s curriculum. In addition, children with special needs are sometimes assigned one-to-one aides who have little training or experience…”
“Even with consultation from specialists, a regular school setting cannot always provide the intensive, focused, constant instruction these children require throughout the entire school day. Although schools may have a mandate to include all children, it is not uncommon that some eventually re-create special classrooms because the children did not receive the appropriate education or their behavior problems could not be addressed within the regular classroom.”