Special Education Debate
The final project in Education 200 was a debate. I was assigned to be on the pro-inclusion side of the special education debate along with two other students. We were up against a pro-mainstreaming group. Although many people tend to use the two terms interchangeably, inclusion differs from mainstreaming in the sense that a student who is mainstreamed is in the same classes with the other students his age, but will most likely be assessed differently. Proponents of inclusion focus on the development of proper social skills and life preparation rather than acquiring grade-level appropriate academic skills from being in a classroom. My teammates and I broke down our pro inclusion argument into three sections: budget, teacher reinforcement, and the social aspect. The first link below shows how we prepared for the debate. We drafted an opening statement, a rebuttal, and a closing statement and we came up with questions to ask our opponents as well as answers to questions that we thought we might get asked. The second link below shows my outline for the section that I was responsible for: the social aspect. Within this topic I addressed concerns such as effectiveness of inclusion after graduation, why separate special education classes are ineffective, benefits of inclusion for nondisabled students, and the effects of being disabled by a title. I also included some more rebuttal ideas and more potential questions and answers. My arguments for inclusion demonstrate my dedication for equal education for all and for doing what’s best for each child in the classroom.