Talk:Inclusive school

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25/3/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Inclusive school has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Inclusive classroom

---

Contents 1 Quotes 2 controversy 3 Images 4 Comments on article 5 "appropriate training programs for teachers, and for all students" 6 criticism 7 Criticism is neutral 8 Picture 9 criticism 10 confused... 11 Third opinion 12 WP:OR 13 reason for deletion 14 Worldwide 15 A response to User talk:69.117.20.128 16 deletion 17 national based information 18 RfC: image? 18.1 Image 2 19 Quotations 20 featured article? 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.2 Discussion

[edit] Quotes

Should we have a source for the quotes? Are the references at the end where they came from? Joyous 23:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

The section Inclusive Classroom should be split. The first article refers to Inclusive Education, which is a philosophy of education which sees diversity as a resource, and speaks for the changing of institutions so that they better serve the differneces among children. The teaching/programming and benefits sections refer specifically to the mainstreamning of Special Needs and Disabled Chilrden. I suggest that this section be merged with mainstreaming, and that the Inclusive Classroom section be retitled Inclusive Education.

Reference UNESCO (2005) Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All

Inclusive classroom is a part of inclusive education. Inclusive education and mainstreaming are two different topics. Mainstreaming does not fully include disabled students with non-disabled students. Inclusive education includes them fully. There is a difference. Inclusive education is obviously the better approach. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

[edit] controversy

As the concept of an Inclusive Classroom is not universally accepted, there definitely should be some other opinions on the subject towards the bottom. The rather ridiculous string of benefits towards the end read exactly like a pamphlet favoring the idea. (They are poorly reasoned as well.) 0638 July 2 2006

[edit] Images

I think this article should have more pictures. This article should be neutral. There should be a child, adolescent and adult with Down syndrome. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

[edit] Comments on article

This article should provide a list of inclusive schools. I personally have never heard of schools that were inclusive. The teachers in inclusive schools must have a lot of training to work with all types of students. I wish my school were inclusive. Then everyone would be more accepting. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

Many countires now have legislation requiring schools to include students with disabiltiies in mainstream education. MrsPlum 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "appropriate training programs for teachers, and for all students"

An inclusive education is possible. I removed the Criticism section because I felt it wasn't necessary to be put in the article when the article is about the concept of inclusive education. An inclusive school provides appropriate training programs for teachers and for all students. This is to help teachers get more training. This defeats the purpose for the Criticism section. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

[edit] criticism

that section is a joke. "Schools, centers of learning and educational systems feel that individual differences create problems in the regular classrooms. They argue that special education helps "fix" the special needs students by providing individualized and personalized instruction to meet their unique needs. It is a cost-effective response instead of creating an inclusive school (which would for the most part be expensive)." It's not an even handed take on criticism of "inclusive classrooms". It's a throw-away mention of *a* criticism, with a follow-up attack on the supposed motives of the critics. This article is definitely not neutral. Novium 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism is neutral

Inclusive education is a dream that will never happen at public schools. Special education will always exist at public schools. It's too expensive for public schools to become an inclusive school. The only schools that would do this are probably a private school. Public schools cannot do this. The criticism looks neutral but I'm going to try and make it better. I think that general education teachers are just lazy. They don't care about children at all. Part of being a teacher is about making sacrifices. Schools are supposed to educate students. Bullying is still an issue in schools. You know why that is? because students don't accept each other. Acceptance is very important and by setting an example in schools students are less likely to harm one another. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

Please remember that additions to Wikipedia need to follow the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. The "Arguments against" section does not cite any sources - it appears to be based on your personal beliefs. It needs to be rewritten, citing prominent critics of inclusive education by name. Rhobite 14:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I think there should be a picture of a disabled and a nondisabled person smiling together. After all this is an article about inclusive classroom. It's about coming together. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

[edit] criticism

This section is a joke, there are no valid, sourced and referenced arguments here. It is the same one-sided, "inclusion good, everything else bad!" schlock as the rest of the article. It needs a thorough rewrite which i'll attempt when i have time unless someone with the interest and the ability to be impartial has the time first. --www.secularism.org.uk 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confused...

Question....what about those people who are suffering from profound mental retardation? How is it possible for them to be a part of the school? It's not possible for every student with special needs to be in an inclusive school. This article is a complete waste. It serves no purpose at all. (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

People suffering profound mental retardation require total supervision and nursing care all their lives. These people are educated in special schools. They cannot be educated in mainstream schools. Therefore inclusive schools are only those special education students that can be educated in the mainstream schools. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

[edit] Third opinion

I call for a compromise. As an editor, I like 69.117.20.128's lead, as it's more concise and understandable. However, the inclusion of Category:Utopias is a clear breach of NPOV. The criticism section would be better off as a pro and con explanation, but I believe Mike's vocabulary was too strong in the opponent section, and 69.117.20.128's was favoring the issue a little too much. Try to put up a sandbox criticism section as a subpage in one of your userpages, and use words with more neutral connotations. bibliomaniac15 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

This is an appallingly biased article, it has no neutrality and is entirely one-sided. It's an affront to Wikipedia's values, I've fully tagged its deficiencies in order that readers do not take its spurious claims as fact or, in any way, sourced information. As it is simply a collection of thoughts of one person, it directly contravenes WP:OR. --Brideshead 16:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not an utopia. I made a mistake the first time. Inclusive classrooms are the reality in most elementary and secondary schools. How is this article an appallingly biased article? It simply states what inclusive classrooms are. It’s a mix of special education students and general education that are taught together. Which should be the right thing to do…then having special ed. students getting pulled out for special education e.g. resource room. I also put in that students that are educated in special schools would not benefit from an inclusive classroom because their needs are too intensive. For example, those suffering from profound mental retardation would not benefit from inclusive classrooms. They would not have a good learning experience as well as general education students. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

Indeed, it's not that I necessarily disagree with the views expressed here, i don't, it's that they are exactly that - views. they are not facts and are unreferrenced. they don't show the whole picture. --Brideshead 19:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does show the whole picture. (69.117.20.128 - Talk)

[edit] reason for deletion

I deleted "in education" because inclusive classrooms don't exist in the education system because public school have special education. When they have it, it means that they don't have inclusive classrooms. They may have what is called an integrated class. but that is different than inclusive classrooms. (209.177.21.6 - talk)

[edit] Worldwide

There are many areas around the world where an inclusive education is implemented, or is being worked towards. see the Education (Additional Support for Learning ) (Scotland) Act 2004 for references to the Scottish system. All of education is idealistic as the disparity between what is aimed for and what is possible in the real world renders it so. --Brideshead 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is special education is a fact that it isn’t an inclusive education. Just because a school is becoming more inclusive does not mean that it practices inclusive education. If inclusive education exist, then give me at least one school that is an inclusive school. "An inclusive education refers to schools, centers of learning and educational systems that no longer provide "regular education" and "special education" but provide a service which includes every student, no matter what he or she needs at the time." This line proves it...that special education is not provided in inclusive schools. (69.117.20.128 - talk)

I give up! This isn't an article, it sounds to me more like a rant from someone who has had a bad experience with special education at school, my free-time is too tight. I'll be supporting this article for deletion as it is pointless. --Brideshead 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)--Brideshead 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A response to User talk:69.117.20.128

Hi there. I noticed that you reinstated some point-of-view material into this article. I appreciate your concerns about this article, and agree that it needs work to bring it to a neutral point of view. However, your editorial comments are clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource. I would appreciate it if you could rewrite your introduction in a neutral tone, or if you could offer me some suggestions as to what would satisfy you in order to prevent this turning into an edit war. I am also posting this to the article talk page so we can engage other editors in discussion. Thanks! --Xnuala (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Also, I have made a few changes to tone down the opinionated parts of the introduction.--Xnuala (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deletion

I support the deletion; this article is a personal rant of one user. It does not cover any area not already covered more appropriately in inclusion, inclusive education, special education, mainstreaming in education and probably others. It discusses a narrow perception of one way of implementing inclusion. The inclusive classroom described here is a fictional system and does not exist in this form in the real world. --Brideshead 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason why this article is under the category of utopian movements. Of course it's a fictional system and that it doesn't exist in this form in the real world. why else have the article been placed in that category of utopian movements? I am objecting to the deletion. Brideshead, you should read The Inclusive Classroom. it's under the references. It will tell you what inclusive education really is. (209.177.21.6 - talk)

Thank you for the suggestion, it will certainly tell me one way of implementing inclusion, one system. 209.177.21.6/(Rainingmysoul?)I have read many, many books on what inclusive education "really is" thank you; this is one example of the huge amount of reference material on inclusion available, but I take it under advisement. --Brideshead 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. Inclusion is a requirement/policy of governments in some countries/states, such as Australia. It does not mean that all students must be included all of the time. Obviously that is not practical. It just means that excluding students on the basis of disability is no longer considered acceptable. This definitely presents some challenges for the teaching profession (what about a section on challenges?). However I don't think it is reasonable to delete an article just because some people don't like or fully understand the concept. MrsPlum 09:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] national based information

Sections on the situation with inclusive education in different countries - comparisons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.152.198 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RfC: image?

Could we use this image for this article? Inclusive education is about accepting everyone. When schools set a good example to the students, students will be more tolerant to each other. Schools need to show tolerance first before students can show it. The result of inclusive schools would be warm caring friendships that will develop. So why not have a image of two girls showing that? (69.117.20.128 - talk)

Why not some nice fluffy bunnies too, or a pony? Is this an encyclopaedia entry on an education topic or is it a big warm fuzzy hug? Give me strength. --Brideshead 19:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hey....that user was being creative. Why don't you come up with an image for this article? There is no images on here. (209.177.21.6 - talk)

• Oh please, "That user" we all know, you are the same user using sock puppets, let's stop pretending. --Brideshead 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The tags are still necvessary. The article is still heavily biased and unreferenced, readers need the warning at the beginnings to know what to expect. The individual comments are flagged to allow them to be address and the entire article is tagged as needing work, it is wikipedia policy. --Brideshead 19:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that mistake...i learned a lesson now...i won't do it anymore...part of being a wikipedian is learning. (209.177.21.6 - talk)

The correct place for the {{unreferenced}} template is either on the Talk page or (my preference) at the end of the article in the "sources" section. Here, though, it isn't needed, as there are already plenty of instances of it in individual sections. Note that it's not for readers, but for editors. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake. --Brideshead 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image 2

Tha anon who keeps adding a pointless image asked me about it on my Talk page (politely), but I see that that was paralleled by his replacing the image in the article with a less than polite edit summary.

The image has no obvious (or even hidden) relation to the article; the explanation – because the girl is smiling and waving at the camera, therefore the photo supports the article – is bizarre. If there is a photo that's genuinely relevant, then fine — though it's not the sort of topic for which images seem particularly relevant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

God give it a rest mel just leave the image in it's relevent mate, peace hav a nice day i've added it back. (81.79.230.126 - talk)

If you can't offer a sensible argument, why bother saying anything? It's clearly not relevant, you've given no coherent reason for thinking that it is. I'll take this to RfC and see what others say. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) I think a picture of children is irrelevant to an article about an administrative strategy for education. Also, "the article doesn't have a picture" is not a valid argument for including even a relevant image. — Demong ^talk 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: RfC - I see nothing to be gained by adding an image to an article on a philosophical argument, even if they were relevant, which these are clearly not. i must admit, I can't imagine what a useful photo for this article would be, i don't think it needs one. --Brideshead 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) I don't see the point of the picture in reference to this article. It is not relevent to the content and does not demonstrate any aspect of an "inclusive classroom". I would say that the image should be left out of the article. Malson 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) The image doesn't have link to the article besides that a classroom usually has children as students. If it was a picture of a class or of children in an inclusive environment (i suppose thats hard to show)... but this picture doesn't seem to do that. MrMacMan ^Talk 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) The image would not be encyclopedic as it would be trying to characterize the subject in a way that is positive rather than neutral. --8521105559a 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(RfC) Why is this image being put here? You can't just publish pictures of children, which seems to be the anon editor's desire. Why is this picture available at all? Shouldn't it be deleted? 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to everyoine who commented. There's unanimous rejection of the use of the image. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

An anon (the person who was insisting on the images, I think), is insisting on the inclusion of a quotations section. Not only is such a section deprecated by the MoS, but the four quotations were either unsourced, anodyne beyond the level of a Hallmark card, or of dubious relevance. The only one with a proper source has again been inserted under the PoV header "Memorable quotes":

• “Children who learn together, learn to live together.” (Reference for quote; URL accessed May 3, 2007)

The source is a Web page about Inclusion, and the quotation is a slogan at the top of the page. It seems to me that this is simply another attempt to push a point of view in the article. I looked at the article to see if the quotation could be included in the text, and the only way would be to say that it's the slogan of a Web page advocating this approach — which is of little significance, and adds nothing to the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 07:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] featured article?

Is it possible for this article to become featured? I really would like this article to be featured. I added citations...what other things can I do to help out?

I love this article...I completely am devoted to this cause...I'm going to fight for this inclusive education movement. After all that I've been through, I will fight for those who aren't treated well in special education. Who's with me?? anyone? cause I'm going to do it...and no one is going to stop me..so there!!! I said it!! (Jessica - talk)

Er, yes. Two problems with that. First, this isn't a soapbox but an encyclopædia; articles must conform with our policies, including WP:NPOV. Your recent additions to the article (apart from introducing some odd English and changing British to U.S. English for no obvious reason) unbalanced the article even further, without adding any substantial information.

Secondly, if you continue to try to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, you may well be blocked from editing.

If you want to campaign for inclusive education, I suggest you do so on your own Website, or find a relevant Website that would appreciate your help. If you want to edit this article, by all means do — but your editing has to be neutral, as well as following our other guidelines and policies.

With regard to this being a featured article: not a chance as it stands, I think. It's seriously unbalanced; if it gets to a point where the NPoV notice can be removed, then you might think about FA status. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move