Mainstreaming: where did we fail?

Twenty years ago, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act in the United States mandated that children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment. It should read "the least restrictive environment in which the child's needs can be met" (Sherrill, 1993; Cratty, 1989; Lavay & DePaepe, 1987 Stein, 1985).

The program should be child centered, meaning some children can be completely integrated, and some children, those with the most severe disabilities, should be in special settings. Stein (1985) emphasized that integration in physical education, recreation, and sport activities should be done in settings "as near to traditional practice as possible." In an article, Mainstreaming-A Value Based Issue (1991), this author emphasized the idea that "mainstreaming is a civil rights issue and not a matter for empirical research."

Sport is a powerful force in socialization. Through sport, people with disabilities can reach empowerment-having power to control and manage their own affairs and being seen as competent citizens. Through living an active life, a person with a disability has a chance to become an independent adult, although often dependent on the support of others (Soeder, 1995).

Mainstream: A Positive Outlook

Individuals with disabilities comprise at least 10% of the population of every country, to which can be added children with developmental delays and those who are clumsy and culturally deprived. They are the silent voice of society with little or not political lobby. The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (USA, 1975; Israel, 1988) gave all children with disabilities the right to equal education. Research confirms the positive effects of mainstreaming on cognitive, social, and perceptual-motor domains of those with disabilities and other categories (Block, 1995; Cowden & Torrey, 1995; DePauw & Karp, 1994; Sherman, 1991; Heikinaro-Johansson, Sherrill, French, & Huuhka, 1995).

Laws dealing with populations having special needs precipitated immense social changes, similar to the effects of racial and gender equality laws. Outcomes include better public awareness of children with disabilities and those who are disadvantaged, and the state's responsibility for their well-being (Ferguson, 1987).

Mainstreaming: A Professional Issue

In the process of evaluating mainstream programs in physical education, teachers and researchers have been asking probing questions such as, Why does mainstreaming in physical education not always work (Lavay & DePaepe, 1987)? Is the mainstream always a better place to be (Grosse, 1991)? What constitutes least restrictive environment (Butteffield, 1991)?

Problems abound--conditions in schools, difficulty of integrating a child with a disability into a regular physical education class of 40 children, teachers ill-prepared to teach in mainstream programs, non-disabled students who reject or are apathetic to students with disabilities. Does the child with a disability benefit from the physical education mainstream program? Does the mainstream program provide optimum learning experiences for children without special needs? Should children who are deaf or blind stay out of mainstream settings? These topics have launched professional debates on values and outcomes of mainstream programs in physical education.

In Israel (1993), groups of parents who were disappointed with integration of students who were culturally disadvantaged in secondary education pressured the Minister of Education to open high schools in disadvantaged communities in some cities. They called these schools Kedma (Onward). These parents believed their children would get a better education in their own community schools. They maintained academic achievements and social behaviors of students had already improved in comparison to student achievements in the past in integrated schools.

Students in community schools do not feel inferior. They cultivate their cultural heritage, are active in their communities, and are not aliens in hostile environments. Children with disadvantages benefit from the academic level of better schools, but the psychological price they pay can be high and cause frustrations. Many would rather be the heads of foxes than the tails of lions. Can we make a parallel between the integration process and the mainstream program?

Mainstreaming: The True Meaning

Mainstreaming and integration are challenges to every democratic society, and this author believes there is no way to go back to segregation. However, the real meaning of integration, mainstreaming, or inclusion is that those with disabilities who are integrated in these programs are capable of benefiting from the program in friendly environments and are receiving all needed services.

The individual education plan does not mean merely screening and prescribing an individual program. It means each child gets services and programs he/she needs to be integrated in the school curriculum, in community activities, and as adults in society.

This process requires an intervention plan for preschool children (Cowden & Torrey, 1995; Eason, 1991). The adapted physical education teacher should be a partner in such intervention programs. The child should receive daily perceptual-motor activity. Any program which is not given at least three times a week or more is barely effective.

Mainstreaming was first implemented in the curriculum in subjects which presumably did not require intellectual learning, such as art, music, and physical education. The assumption probably was that the student with a disability did not need specific abilities or a unique talent to participate in these classes. Unfortunately, it was a mistake to integrate a child without basic perceptual-motor abilities in a class of 40-60 children. A child with special needs got virtually nothing out of such programs

Doubts also exist whether a student's attitude toward those with disabilities became more positive, and whether social interactions really took place (Block, 1995; Archie & Sherrill, 1989). Consideration should be given to what happens to a child with a disability after school hours, and if he/she really has some social life (Butteffield, 1991).

The remedy for the present situation is expensive and time consuming. A child with a disability should not be placed in a program where he/she will feel inferior, helpless, and ashamed. One should acknowledge "the mainstream may not always be a better place for special needs children for physical education activities" (Grosse, 1991:40).

Most children with disabilities or developmental delays benefit from a small-sized class. and in some cases from an individual program of perceptual-motor activity. An effective plan should incorporate parents, professional preparation students, and volunteers, thus offering a daily adapted physical activity for each child with a disability.

The next step is to integrate the child with a disability in physical education activity which benefits the child, such as lifetime sports and any activity in which that child is not inferior to the non-disabled child. Some children with disabilities are gifted in swimming, some in long-distance running, some in soccer. In most cases, these achievements are a result of early and concentrated, prolonged training. In these skills the child with a disability can be integrated into a regular class. However, many students with disabilities still need specific special education classes to develop motor skills and abilities for daily living, such as coordination, balance, flexibility, strength, and endurance. A child with a disability tends to be less active than his/her peers, and the normal pace of motor development may be slow and irregular.

The main goal of a mainstreaming program should be developing each child to his/her optimum potential. Expectations from The Education for all Handicapped Children Act were high, but reality has been deeply disappointing, as only a very small percentage of borderline children have been integrated into regular classes. All the rest have been put under the same roof as their peers, but in segregated classes. The meeting between these two groups is artificially enforced. This situation may satisfy administrators and legislators, but not the children or their parents.

The remedy might be for parents to be able to choose the educational setting most suited for their child with a disability. The basic criterion is the child's wellbeing, even if it means sending this child to a special school. Unfortunately, today too many parents fight hard to integrate their child into a regular class, even if it is not for the child's benefit.

This author believes we should value achievements of special schools and not abolish them completely. If special schools, such as community schools in Israel, would take the initiative and leadership and offer limitless opportunities for children with disabilities, they would attract children who really cannot benefit from a regular school. In the future, it is hoped that we will, indeed, reach the ultimate goal of educating all children under one roof.

Conclusion

Laws concerning needs of the individual child opened a new era for populations with special needs. Until 1975, those with disabilities lived on the fringes of society, and social prejudice prevented them from being integrated into the community.

Pros and cons of mainstreaming have been described, and the belief expressed that integration should continue. A different approach to dealing with the gaps between those with disabilities and without in the perceptual-motor domain has been suggested.

True integration requires more budget than is readily available. Therefore, parents, students, and volunteers should be incorporated in implementing mainstream programs The individual education plan in physical education can be effective through intervention movement plans for preschoolers and a daily physical activity plan for school-age children.

Integration in education was initiated for the well-being of children who are disadvantaged and disabled, but the dilemma of the least restrictive environment has not yet found a satisfactory solution.

Selected References

Archie, W.V., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed children in physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 319-322.

Block, M.E. (1995). Development and validation of the children's attitude toward integrated physical education-revised (CAIPE-R) inventory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 60-77.

Butterfield, S. (1991). Physical education and sport for the deaf: Rethinking the least restrictive environment. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 95-102.

Cowden, J.E., & Torrey, C.C. (1995). ROADMAP for assessing infants, toddlers, and preschoolers: The role of the adapted motor developmentalist. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 1-11.

Cratty, B.J. (1989). Adapted Physical Education in the Mainstream (2nd ed.). Denver, Colorado: Love Publishing Company.

DePauw, K.P., & Karp, G.G. (1994). Integrating knowledge of disability throughout the physical education curriculum: An infusion approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11, 3-13.

Eason, R. (1991). Adapted physical education. Delivery model for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62(6), 41-43, 47.

Ferguson, D.L., Ferguson, P.M., & Bogdon, R.C. (1987). If mainstreaming is the answer, what is the question? In: D.C. Berliner (Ed.). Educators Handbook-A Research Perspective (pp. 394-419). New York: Longman Publisher.

Grosse, S. (1991). Is the mainstream always a better place to be? Palaestra, 7(2), 40-49.

Heikinaro-Johansson, P., Sherrill, C., French, R., & Huuhka, H. (1995). Adapted physical education consultant service model to facilitate integration. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 12-33.

Lavay, B., & DePaepe, J. (1987). The harbinger helper: Why mainstreaming in physical education doesn't always work. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 58(7), 98-103.

Sherman, A. (1991). Mainstreaming-a value based issue. Palaestra, 7(2), 36-39.

Sherrill, C. (1993). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisciplinary and lifespan (4th ed). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark

Soeder, M. (1995). Empowerment, rehabilitation or freak show-Sports for the disabled and the socialization of young people with disabilities. A lecture presented at the 10th International Symposium on Adapted Physical Activity (Oslo, Noway).

Stein, J.U. (1985). Mainstreaming in recreation settings. It can be done. Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 56(5), 25, 52.

Atara Sherman is Assistant Director and head of the Special Education Department, The Zinman College of Physical Education of Wingate Institute, Israel.