Talk:Mainstreaming (education)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2018 and 15 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reichert21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"The fact that more and more students are claiming disabilities provides a financial nightmare for school districts."

How can students claim disabilities if the general education teacher has to first refer them? This article makes no sense at all. Someone should rewrite this article. (Moivie)

I don't get it, if someone looks just like the kids in, say, grade 3, and has their same cognitive abilities, but happens to actually be a lot older, why aren't they put with their other peers whom they virtually blend in with? It'd just be being 'held back' but without any attempt at reprimand. Those with lower cognitive functions _very_ frequently _look_ like little kids anyway, so what's the difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Referrals are not required from general ed teachers. Under U.S. (federal) law, any parent or guardian may request an evaluation for disabilities. Among certain kinds of upper-middle class parents, getting a perfectly average child evaluated for possible learning disabilities is a rite of passage. (Obviously, these parents think they progeny must always be above-average, or something's clearly wrong.) Many disabled kids start getting school services at the age of three, two years before a Kindergarten teacher has any reason to see them. WhatamIdoing 00:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

intro

i know i'll regret doing this, but i'm sick to death of seeing these disgusting, only=my=point=of=view-counts introduction in an encyclopaedia. Keep it neutral and state the facts, i mean for god sake..."on a happier note"!!! it's like a bloody childs story. --Brideshead 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

revert

Nothing has changed and the concerns are still valid. the site is not effectively sourced, it is heavily US biased and is written in a tone not appropriate to an encyclopaedia. --Brideshead 18:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Working on rewrite to make article encyclopedia and include citations

Hi,

I'm in the process of revising this article so that it better reflects Wikipedia guidelines. This will take multiple revisions, and I would welcome additional editors who would like to collaborate on the work.

Best, Rosmoran 09:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A Mainstreaming Picture

Just commenting on the general silliness I see in asking for a picture in an article about mainstreaming. What would that picture be, exactly? A generic picture of a kid at a desk? A picture of a stream?

Pictures are swell, but only when they're, you know, meaningful. RyanGrant 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a kind contributer, I would like to tell you something

I would like to tell you that I revised the first sentence because the previous one was the definition for inclusion. Educators who read this would know that inclusion and mainstreaming are two very different practices. --Nitsirk 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainstreaming is the preferred practice.

According to this website: [1], mainstreaming is the preferred practice instead of inclusion. Should it be mentioned in the article along with the source? --Nitsirk 14:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but preferred by whom matters. Some parents and some teachers prefer inclusion. Others prefer mainstreaming model. A few even prefer segregated instruction. So I'd say, add the information -- but make sure that it's presented with a caveat instead of as The Truth. WhatamIdoing 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also here's another link that says that inclusion is a controversial concept: [2]. Should this be included in the inclusion article? I'm not sure if that link is an appropriate source to be placed in the article? Some links can be based on what people think and not the truth. --Nitsirk 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the information about mainstreaming is the preferred practice. Please do not yell at me. I am only doing what's best for the article. I provided the source. If you can make it better, please help improve it. --Nitsirk 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source. You can certainly list more than one source if you want. It can go in either article, as you think best. WhatamIdoing 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is good reason on why mainstreaming has become the preferred practice. By law students who are eligible for Special Education services are supposed to be in the least restrictive environment [3]. Additionally, providing students with opportunities to be mainstreamed in general education is the goal for students who qualify for Special Education Services. Should a student be able to function in a general education classroom, such as Physical Education, Art, Computers, Drama, Band, etc. the student should be involved in the general education population. Special Education services purpose is to provide an education setting in the least restrictive environment. Many special education students would benefit from being surrounded by peers in the general education climate; this is where Special Education students can build on their social skills.--Cericson08 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

I'm thrilled that someone has taken the time to address the previously unsourced statements. However, the source that claims a 14% increase in graduation rates does NOT attribute it to either mainstreaming or to inclusion. It attributes it to the American law which requires that disabled students actually receive some education services. The source does not claim that the increase has anything to do with mainstreaming practices. It could have been due, for example, to the ability in an IEP to change the minimum graduation requirements, or to the increase in segregated classrooms at regular schools -- or even due to labeling students with very mild learning differences as being disabled, so that the overall pool is no longer comparable. For this article, we need to find a source that specifically says mainstreaming improves academic achievements compared to another educational option (presumably total segregation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The WEAC link is interesting. It suggests that this book[4] would be valuable in providing details that compare mainstreaming to total segregation. The WEAC link also asserts that there are no good studies comparing mainstreaming to inclusion, so you'll want to be careful about any statement that implies that mainstreaming is better, worse, or the same as inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Minorities and Education

I've pulled this:

Studies have shown that disproportionate numbers of racial minorities are labeled as being disabled. Disadvantaged students are also more likely to be misdiagnosed. In particular, black and Hispanic students in the U.S. are more likely to be wrongly labeled as being emotionally disturbed or mentally retarded by schools. States are now required to collect and report data concerning minorities with disabilities.

The fear is that most minority students in the United States leave school without reaching their full potential. In the past, the group that receives the lowest-achievement rates have been boys and girls who are poor and of racial, ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity.

Whereas immediately placing a child in a separate environment for learning disabled student promotes stagnation and learned helplessness, mainstreaming and inclusion of minorities in the regular classroom promotes academic acceleration.

because, no matter how True™ it is, it's not particularly obvious what this has to do with mainstreaming. It's a soapbox about discrimination in special education in general, and the complaint applies just as much to full inclusion and segregation programs as it does to mainstreaming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Other Side

I can't be the only person who has, bcause the teacher doesn't know what else to do with them, ended up having to provide remedial instruction to the students being mainstreamed. If an aide isn't provided, and it's a high school class-and usually these individuals do fine in Art or P.E. without any special help to speak of-but a major reason that I'm leery of mainstreaming is that, in my experience, it's the district passing the buck to unqualified (and in my case, incredibly impatient) students in an attempt to make us more 'tolerant' or something. I'm perfectly 'tolerant'-I'm just not a special ed teacher. LeeRamsey (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source that talks about using non-disabled students to help disabled students? I'm aware of it happening -- it's an extension of assigning one "good" student, one "bad" student, and a couple of "middling" students to every group -- but we need a source, not personal experience. If we can get a source, this could go under "Disadvantages to typical (or advanced) students."

BTW, I've heard from some teachers that some middling-level students really enjoy being a "student-teacher," so ideally that source would say something about student reaction or impact on their education. For a person who really learns best by teaching it to someone else, this might be considered an advantage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge request

Original request posted at WP:RM: "Mainstreaming is simply another method of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. It would make sense to have the mainstreaming article merged into the special education article. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)"

This is a merge request not a requested move as originally posted so I have added the appropriate headers. Nonetheless, discuss away. — AjaxSmack 01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the merge proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - as nominator. Mainstreaming is simply another method of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. It would make sense to have the mainstreaming article merged into the special education article. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because mainstreaming is not the same as inclusion. In most of the US, a student is classified as "mainstreamed" if s/he spends <50% of the day in classrooms with typical students, and "included" if s/he spends >50% of the day in classrooms with typical students. There are also philosophical differences (does the student really "belong" here or there) that matter to some people. You and I might say that the difference between 49% and 51% classroom time is immaterial, or that the exact word used to describe the program is unimportant, but it really matters to many "special parents". Additionally, a student who is "mainstreamed" for forty-five minutes of physical education every other day is not, in practice, "included" in any meaningful sense of the word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments: The article states "Schools that practice mainstreaming believe that special needs students "belong" to the special education environment". Does this mean that each school picks which one they want to do? Mainstreaming or inclusion? As far as I know, the law wants special needs children to be included first if it's possible and if that doesn't work out, mainstreaming is preferred. If mainstreaming doesn't work out, then schools have the right to place them in the most restrictive environment. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes: in actual practice, an individual school picks a general approach. Keep in mind that a school with 500 students probably has about five kids that are affected by this decision: severely disabled kids (~1% of all students or ~10% of kids with IEPs) will end up in a more restrictive environment even if you "usually" practice full inclusion; mildly disabled kids (~80% of the kids with IEPs) will be included in the regular classroom even if you "usually" prefer the mainstreaming model. The remaining 10% of disabled kids -- five kids, in a school of 500 students, all of whom will have cognitive disabilities -- could go either way.

Haven't we been through all of this before? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainstreaming is simply another method of helping special needs students achieve their full potential. Is it possible that we can put mainstreaming and inclusion into the special education article? I don't understand why it has two separate articles to begin with. They both relate to special education. As a reader, I feel that having two separate articles only provides confusion. I think that mainstreaming and inclusion should both be merged into the special education article. It really doesn't make sense to have both of them separate. Mainstreaming and inclusion are very similar to each other. The only exception is that they are two methods in helping special needs students succeed. The special education article talks about the methods in helping special needs students succeed. Wouldn't it make sense to mention mainstreaming and inclusion in the special education article as that is the main purpose? (Tigereyes92 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

It's fine to mention them (and to link to them) in Special education, but that article will be plenty long enough without including every approach to the subject. It's the nature of Wikipedia articles that they grow and split over time. "All in one place" leads to book-length articles, which is not desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is believed that educating children with disabilities alongside their non-disabled peers facilitates access to the general curriculum for children with disabilities.

It is not what society believes where special needs students belong in. Their special needs are the key to providing an appropriate education. If their needs require inclusion, mainstreaming or exclusion and in some cases a combination then that's where they belong. It is not up to society to decide where they belong. And besides, there will always be some children however; whose severe learning difficulties challenge our schools. Laws were changed because disabled students were not given the right help. And because of this people felt bad and that's why they think that disabled students should always be educated alongside their non-disabled peers. --Tigereyes92 (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how your views about this issue have anything at all to do with the merge proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Language

I've just removed the "typically developing" language from this article. Again, if memory serves. I realize that this is the terminology preferred by many parents and some teachers in the U.S. Specifically, it's the language preferred by people who work with kids who have certain kinds of disabilities -- say, autism or Down syndrome.

It is not preferred by parents and teachers who are working with kids whose disabilities are "phyiscal" -- leukemia, for example, or traumatic brain injury from an accident, or diabetes or psychiatric problems like major depressive disorder. The kid in my old high school who broke his neck on his motorcycle was "typically developing," but still very much disabled and very much in need of special education services for the rest of his years in high school.

I ask that you not "erase" these kinds of disabilities by using "typically developing" as a synonym for non-disabled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

merge proposal

...is over here if anyone wants to tackle the topic. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

costs

I should think that mainstreaming cuts costs, since it could reduce or eliminate the size of the special ed program. Yet costs are cited as a disadvantage, not an advantage. Can anyone explain?--Bdell555 (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuts costs, compared to what? Compared to, say, excluding kids with special needs entirely from school, I'd say mainstreaming is quite expensive. Compared to letting the kids fail in a regular classroom (without any sort of support), it's more expensive. Compared to year-round residential institutionalization, it's cheap. It just depends on what your baseline is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Neutral POV.

I have looked over this article quite extensively, and while there are many references to what educators, teachers and parents want, it seems to have absolutely no information about whether a child's opinion matters in this.

I cannot post what I have, because its a direct experience and so I have no sources and its all original research. But this does need to be addressed, because its a serious issue: Myself, and others, were pushed through special ed without anyone stopping to consider whether it was right. From using outdated behavior systems (point-based reward) to humiliation (forcing high schoolers to sit facing the wall) and to actively denying them the ability to come to class.

Im not saying my views are without challenge. But that they do not show up anywhere speaks volumes, as it appears to be a direct mirror of the problem in the real world. Of course, something that needs to be mentioned even more: due to our inability to get meaningful help at a state or district level, due to being shut away in schools which arent even schools, more like jails, and a complete and total dismissal among authorities that there could be a problem.

When you do have emotional difficulties, say, anxiety and depression, it should be plain to see how such a person could be intimidated by threatening authorities into keeping quiet. Including threats that you would have to sue your own parents too. As a result, theres not a lot of "non-original" research out there.

Because of this, its my sad duty to say that this article has no merit, is redundant, and has no purpose being here. This is the exact same stump speech the special ed people throw at parents and teachers. It contains no meaningful informaiton, because this is the sort of thing they have in pamphlet form at every school and doctors office.

Until this page can manage a way to find a set of official statements from a group of such victims, it cannot be neutral. because thats what a lot of people who were forced through this feel like: Victims, not patients or students.

Again, I hope I have done well to explain why this information is so hard to come across. I was threatend with being kept in residential treatment til i was 22. Stuff like that.

Any suggestions, for how to go about this, would be very welcomed. I do not want to post my own story, becasue I cant collaborate it...Even scanning all my IEP records would do nothing, since they never wrote down one word I said.

So yeah, problem. Non neutral. Only shares one side of the argument, and shares it as dutifully as those same pamphlets its copied from. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that discuss the issues you have raised - it's that simple. Wikipedia only records information that is available in reliable published sources. Roger (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to accurately reproduce what the published reliable sources say on a subject. If there are no published reliable sources reporting the views of students, then Wikipedia does not include that information.

Additionally, it's important to remember that this article is about one type of special education—the kind where the student spends most of the day with only disabled students, and the rest of the day with non-disabled, same-age peers. People who are "shut away in schools which aren't even schools" are not being mainstreamed. They're being completely segregated in a special school. Therefore, this article is the wrong place to describe that situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Mainstreaming (education) → Mainstreaming (United States) — Confusion as this term is used in the United States law. No other country uses this term but the United States. It would prevent unnecessary confusion. Reyna Sunara (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, present title seems more informative (unless someone is planning to start a separate article on mainstreaming in education in other countries).--Kotniski (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Could you explain what confusion you're trying to avoid? We prefer to disambiguate with subject area rather than geography. Powers ^T 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mainstreaming (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130921054824/http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED132767 to http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED132767

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mainstreaming (education). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014004553/http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm to http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014004553/http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm to http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202938/http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf to http://nclid.unco.edu/Resources/IDEA_Progress.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808035931/http://www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/legal/ to http://www.uni.edu/coe/inclusion/legal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918140516/http://www.csef-air.org/ to http://www.csef-air.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)