Deaf Education in America: Voices of Children from Inclusion Settings

4. Confronting the Realities of Inclusion

26 Inclusion—the idea that all children should and can learn in a regular classroom—has taken firm root in many school systems, even though it is not specifically required by law (Cromwell, 1997). Opposing inclusion would seem to advocate exclusion, even though some observers maintain that inclusion isn’t always the best way to meet student needs. In their view, trying to force all students into the inclusion mold is “just as coercive and discriminatory as trying to force all students into the mold of a special education class or residential institution” (Kauffman, 1995). Some voices in the discourse of inclusion have even wondered whether, in the zeal to promote inclusion, some inclusionists have forgotten about the child (Block, 1999). Though most educators would agree that some students do benefit from inclusive education, the question remains: Are there some children for whom “inclusion” is inappropriate? In the wake of No Child Left Behind, educators can no longer ask themselves if deaf students can learn in inclusive settings, but instead, can deaf students achieve academic excellence in inclusive settings? This analysis would not only support the underlying belief system that all children can learn but that all children have the right of reaching their own full individual potential of learning. Schools that expect less, or that are only capable of less, fail their students and the communities that support them (Denbo et al., 2001). Serious questions have been raised about the ability of inclusive settings to foster adequate communicative learning environments for deaf students. It is apparent that many professionals are concerned with deaf children’s lack of access to direct communication in inclusive settings (Siegel, 2001; Nowell, 1997; Ramsey, 1997; Schildroth, 1997, p. 10; Cohen, 1994, p. 7; Leigh, 1994; Stone, 1994; Winston, 1998; Stinson & Lang, 1994; Lane, 1992; Padden & Humphries, 1988; etc). The effects of communication deprivation can have deeply profound effects on the long-term welfare Confronting the Realities of Inclusion 4 27 Confronting the Realities of Inclusion of the deaf child, resulting in diminished relationship building (Krever, 2002) and diminished linguistic latitude in vocabulary and conceptualization (National Center on Deafness, 2003). In order for deaf and hard of hearing children to succeed in regular education placements, schools must be able to effectively integrate them into the social milieu and the learning activities of the school and classroom (Stinson and Lang, 1994). Yet the only way for deaf students to gain full access to the communication in the classrooms would be if the teachers and classmates were to become fluent in American Sign Language and use it in all communicative acts. Separate from this, significant communication barriers can greatly hinder the education of deaf students. Deaf and hard of hearing students are among the ranks of students with special needs being placed in regular education classrooms. About 64% of these students receive some or all of their education in regular classrooms. Even though deaf students are placed within the category of “students with disabilities” or “special education students,” their situation is unique in that 50% use sign language as their primary means of communication (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005). Their use of a language apart from the majority language places them more realistically in the category of bilingual students. Deaf students’ normal range of cognitive abilities also would be consistent with this placement. Many come from Englishspeaking families, unlike other bilingual children. In fact, research shows that more than 70% of these children do not share a language with their own parents and siblings (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005). Instead, they share a language with a group of people with whom their families have very little contact. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) embraces the notion of providing for and planning for the intellectual, social, and emotional development of the student receiving special education services . While there has been a focus on the placement of students in inclusive settings, there has been little concern for what happens to the child in the hallway, lunchroom, or after-school activities (Kluwin & Stinson, 1993). This framework of support is often lacking in our fervor to place children in inclusive settings (Banks, 1994). Without this framework, inclusion means “fear, confusion, neglect, and fragmentation” (p. 193). Chapter Four 28 An essential element of the support framework for building relationships is knowledge and respect for the cultures represented. Children who are competent members of their own culture...