One can very quickly make demands from the highest authority with the claim of a humane equality of handicapped children who have been educated in our special schools, with specially trained teachers, by the inclusion but after the dissolution of the special schools became part of the general education system.

The problem is that children with disabilities are subject to much more stress in the general school system, because they are measured by normal school performance and they are always the last ones. That's an absolutely other situation as it was in the special school for disabled children, such schule climate is a "protected areal for disabled children. In the normal school system teachers are partly overstrained, discrimination of the handicapped children is almost inevitable. Most normal schools have far too few special rooms in which disabled children are temporarily grouped together and given special lessons. The idea of "integration" is indeed humane, but if the financial and pedagogical prerequisites are not there, then this reform has been a mistake.

Thank you very much for your comment. What is your own perspective on integration and inclusion terms?

The trained teachers for educating handicapped children often are used by the school authorities to serve a number of schools; travelling from schoot to school, their job is not desirable. They can't manage it without problems to be a form caregiver and a person of emotional confidence for every child, how it is normal in a firm position at only one school. I don't support such system, but let us hear the voices of teachers who are confronted with such problems daily.

When my statements are contradicted by affected teachers working in inclusion classes, I am not angry at all, I am happy. Because I am not an opponent of inclusion, but the conditions under which this happens are often inadequate. The ministry does not want to spend more money on inclusion, but to save money. However, inclusion costs much more than the previous system if the normal school is really set up "in line with inclusion". The entire teacher training system must also be changed. Because the normal teachers have neither the knowledge nor the experience to make professional diagnoses of children with behavioural problems - and much more.

Thank you very much! I agree with you on some points. I believe that there are some important keys for successful inclusion:

1) Teacher education on inclusion, differentiated instruction and disability studies

2) Home-school collaboration practices

3) Collaboration practices between general and special education teachers

4) Reforming education policy

5) Strengthening school units

6) More money on inclusion

The big problem of this kind of inclusion is the modern "year class"- system. There are more than one models of the past, of the classical concepts of "New Education" in the 20th century which have a priori age-mixed learning groups in which three age groups are grouped together, for example the 6-9 year olds as a subgroup, the 10-12 year olds as a middle group and the 13-14 year olds as a youth group. In mixed-age groups, disabled children have no problem always being the last.

For normal school today, it is simply embarrassing for a disabled child to be an adolescent school child of normal school, and unfortunately much slower to learn compared to normal children, these disabled children are almost always older than the children of the rest of the normal class and their performance is worse than the children of their class. This is embarrassing for children and parents to have to go through the whole system in this way. This is discriminatory.

"No Child Left Behind" is just another PC theme in education. Society has to be taught and explained as to what will need to be taught in order to take care of our needy learners (no matter what the label will be). Actually, we are all needy in some way! for learning. In US the subjectivity/affective domain in small community education left as a priority in 1965. I do like the idea of neighborhood support. In the 1950's & 1960's my education in a small Mississippi town was just that....warming support within the community...without labels. So the question is "how do we reverse our pace of society support to understand diversity?

NCLB has failed our children because it targets our struggling schools with a standardized approach to testing and curriculum that ignores culture, poverty, and funding. NCLB punished the vulnerable, and created a teach-to-the-test approach to pedagogy that hinders student ability to write and think freely, effectively wiping out time to teach critical thinking in high-need schools. Closing neighborhood schools because they are "ineffective" destroys communities and puts children in dangerous, sometimes untenable situations.

I totally agree with Lawanda. Creativity into an artistic pursuit was limited. Also, even though NCLB had Visual Arts' standards...they were never monitored or taught with a lab experimentation methodology. I do not like trends that appear to change continuously...but the S.T.E.M./S.T.E.A.M movement within public schools at least gives the Arts a "dog in the race".

In my opinion, no. There are many things left off the table such as teacher and staff professional development, team building amongst teachers/staff to find collaborative and coordination to fix common issue themes found in failing schools. if the teachers aren’t Professionally and properly trained, students will find themselves lacking some key transferable skills such a short speaking, writing, presenting, team building, innovation, etc. so, I strongly lean towards this is a “top-down” approach. For the act to be inclusive, every teacher/professional staff must be given equal treatment in order to truly make education inclusive and meaningful. Our world have seemed to move away from that approach and have moved more towards working with students who are fast learners and thinkers, rather than truly educating tomorrows leaders.