In assessing whether students with severe disabilities should be allowed access to a regular curriculum, it seems that one factor above all must guide the decisions; namely, what is in the best interests of the disabled students. There is in this scenario the element of how the regular curriculum would be affected, in terms of the learning of the ordinary students. Obviously, if measures in place to facilitate the education of the disabled interfere with the process to a significant extent, no one benefits. At the same time, the inescapable -and obvious – reality is that those students not suffering from a severe disability are advantaged in comparison. They may more easily adjust to whatever minor changes are required, as they are ethically obligated to do so, if the welfare of the disabled is to be properly addressed. Consequently, the central issue remains: what is best for the disabled?
Certainly, the degree and/or type of disability is important here. However, in general terms, it is not advisable that the severely disabled be within the normal curriculum. On one level, there are advantages to be gained from such an inclusion, chief among them the blending of the students. The disabled have many obstacles to overcome in daily life, and the increased socialization of the normal curriculum may lessen emotional issues. That said, it is equally probable that negative consequences could arise, in that the disabled students would feel more isolated or different in the midst of the average student population. In my estimation, this is a gamble not worth making. Full inclusion is not recommended, although partial inclusion may provide a compromise. That compromise should be in place, again, only in regard to the welfare of the disabled, and when the specific students are more likely to succeed socially and academically with the other students. In any other instance, unfortunately, even the best intentions to promote the confidence of the disabled may backfire. These things considered, then, I support a separate curriculum for the severely disabled, with only the possible exception of partial inclusion in less severe cases. Should parents or teachers be concerned about the effects of this, or any, inclusion of the disabled on the regular classroom, I would emphasize that the non-impaired students need to comprehend the realities of the disadvantaged. It is not only the disabled who require socialization, and the classes in such cases must be maintained to stress the basic imperative of the need of the “normal” to understand, and help, those afflicted. With the guidance of the teachers, the students must learn that this is a reality of life, and teachers then have an opportunity to promote the understanding that will benefit all when the school years are over.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Philosophy of Educating Students with Severe Disabilities".
With regard to parental involvement, there is no single answer as to the degree of involvement. To even propose one would be to ignore the many dimensions of disability, and actually categorize disabled students unfairly. What must develop is a level of participation that arises from the ongoing and committed cooperation between the parents, the teachers, and the students themselves. As with curriculum inclusion, the parents and teachers must acknowledge the reality of the situation, and then work together to provide the best possible learning environment for the disabled student. This may take any number of forms, ranging from the severely disabled student who requires consistent interaction with both parents and teacher, to the one clearly benefiting from a more independent course. These variables being inevitable, I would work with parents on collaborating in this arena by first affirming what must be a mutually accepted fact: we are working together for the child, and all efforts made in that direction, either promoting greater or lesser involvement, will be dictated by that concern alone. It is the cornerstone of the process; consequently, when the parents trust that I have that concern foremost in my mind, a mutual trust will develop that encourages what is best for the student. Additionally, I would establish as an imperative that open and honest communication be maintained between us. It is likely that a parent may object to a specific effort, just as I may have issues with a form of parental interaction. As long as we may candidly and respectfully discuss these things, however, the child’s welfare will remain paramount.
In plain terms, all concerns I have regarding students with severe disabilities are equally immense. On one level, I am guided by a strong motive to instruct, and consequently overcome disability barriers in whatever way facilitates learning. We are in place to teach and, in these cases, the student is perhaps more in need of learning than other students, because they are limited in other avenues to well-being. At the same time, I feel that the socialization element of school is critical. Regular students face challenges here, as students of all kinds are simultaneously creating their own identities as they are being shaped by the school environment. My concern for the disabled student, in a curriculum set apart to address their needs, is then all the more pressing. This is why I favor partial inclusion, even as I know such inclusion requires careful monitoring. Disability is a fact of these students’ lives, and will inevitably go to self-perception and relations with others.
The goal is balance. The concern is to acknowledge the reality of the disability without permitting it to impede any possible development, academic or social. For too long, disabled students have been stigmatized, simply because this is easier on the school and on the society. It is also dangerous to veer too far in the other direction and negate the reality of the disability, and I fear this is a modern tendency. My focus, then, is on a kind of pragmatic effort, one that acknowledges disability without empowering it beyond its presence, and one that similarly provides the disabled student with a realistic and confident sense of worth and potential. Most importantly, my concern – and that focus – goes to the individuality of the student. As we fully embrace this in regard to non-impaired students, it is all the more critical that we comprehend uniqueness in these cases where some form of segregation is already in place. For me, each severely disabled student is first a student unlike any other, and this is the conviction I would bring to the classroom and to the teachers and parents working with me.
