I totally agree. But the consequences inclusion-for-everyone can be dire. Sometime in the late fall, I was in the office waiting to see the VP. The door was open and I could hear a colleague talking to her about one of his math classes. He had a class consisting of 50% special ed students for two periods each day (grade level and support). All were very low ability, and some were very hard to manage. He had no aide, and he was reminding her that he was not a special ed teacher, and he was not being given any assistance. The VP responded that the school was definitely in a precarious legal position if one of the parents complained.
Sure enough, not long afterwards, the teacher was put on leave. The word was that he "put his hands on" one of his students. Apparently, the details were unclear, because my colleague was tranferred, not fired.
I had the student in question, and he was incredibly disruptive. He was in a grade-level science class, but he could barely read or write, let alone sit quietly. And no one gave me any suggestions on what to do for him, and the other special ed students - and I asked, no, begged for help.
Here in CA we do have a least-restrictive environment policy. Unfortunately the least-reastrive environment for the child may not be a mainstream classroom with no aide or other support. We are told that a general ed teacher should be able to teach and manage any children assigned to their classroom. That's like telling an M.D. that they should be able to treat any patient, regardless of their condition, regardless of the doctor's expertise, and without the support of a specialist. What nonsense.
Edited: August 03, 2011 08:06PM