The Instigator
Rizkaa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

THBT Parent should have obligation to send their children to inclusion school

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 65422
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Rizkaa

Pro

Additional Info: In inclusion school student with special needs ( Asperger Syndrome, Autism, or Mental Retardation) learn in the same classroom along student without mental disability.
Round 1 is acceptance, rounds 2 and 3 are arguments and rebuttals, round 4 is rebuttals and conclusion.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank Pro for starting this thought-provoking debate.

As requested by Pro, I will use this round for acceptance only.

I now return the floor to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Rizkaa

Pro

Thanks for accepted this challenge.
First, I want to define what is 'Inclusion school' it self and give you limitations.

Inclusive in education is an approach once thought only necessary for educating students with special educational needs. Now it is crucial that all teachers ensure inclusive practice for all students in their classroom and the wider school. Under the inclusion model, students with special needs spend most or all of their time with non-disabled students. Implementation of these practices varies. Schools most frequently use them for selected students with mild to severe special needs.

Inclusion is about the child"s right to participate and the school"s duty to accept the child. Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms to separate students with disabilities from students without disabilities. A premium is placed upon full participation by students with disabilities and upon respect for their social, civil, and educational rights. Inclusion gives students with disabilities skills they can use in and out of the classroom.

Inclusion has two sub-types:the first is sometimes called regular inclusion or partial inclusion, and the other is full inclusion.

My limitation is in Regular inclusion in Premiere school.

Define :
"Inclusive practice" is not always inclusive but is a form of integration. For example, students with special needs are educated in regular classes for nearly all of the day, or at least for more than half of the day. Whenever possible, the students receive any additional help or special instruction in the general classroom, and the student is treated like a full member of the class. However, most specialized services are provided outside a regular classroom, particularly if these services require special equipment or might be disruptive to the rest of the class (such as speech therapy), and students are pulled out of the regular classroom for these services. In this case, the student occasionally leaves the regular classroom to attend smaller, more intensive instructional sessions in a resource room, or to receive other related services, such as speech and language therapy, occupational and/or physical therapy, psychological services, and social work.This approach can be very similar to many mainstreaming practices, and may differ in little more than the educational ideals behind it.

So, I really agree with this motion. My arguments are :

1. Social side. First for students with disabilities gave so many benefit : Research has shown positive effects for children with disabilities in areas such as reaching individualized education program (IEP) goal, improving communication and social skills, increasing positive peer interactions, and post school adjustments. And the second for normal students also gave positive effects on children without disabilities include the development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities and the enhancement of social status with non disabled peers.
Several studies have been done on the effects of inclusion of children with disabilities in general education classrooms. A study on inclusion compared integrated and segregated (special education only) preschool students. The study determined that children in the integrated sites progressed in social skills development while the segregated children actually regressed because they didn't plunged directly in real environment they only know about environment with people who has same disabilities, so it makes them more scared because if the segregated children more look 'different' with normal people. (Staub and peck 1994/1995)

2. About justification.
Every children has right same to get good education and study with normal people. Don't makes them different with segregated children who has special needs with normal people to get education. They have right to communication and build good relationship with normal friends in real environment. And normal children also has right to build relationship with them and to realize that in their environment there was people disabilities who need their attention, their love and their respect. Yeah, they are different but they have freedom like us as normal people.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I will start by defining some key terms, followed by my arguments and rebuttals.

Definitions & Clarifications

Obligation: An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. [1]

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Pro has defined Inclusion Schools as that which teaches students of normal intelligence and capabilities alongside students with special needs such as Asperger Syndrome, Autism, or Mental Retardation. Alongside = Same classrooms.

Arguments

I. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parents.

Pro has a large burden to uphold, and it is found solely in the key term: Obligation. By introducing that term into the resolution, Pro has now taken on the burden of having to justify both the moral and legal bounds placed on parents should this resolution be affirmed.

In short:

1- what moral justification is there for placing such an obligation on parents?

2- what legal justification is there for placing such an obligation on parents?

If Pro cannot give sufficient justification for placing such an obligation on parents, then the resolution automatically fails to be affirmed.

II. Special Needs

Pro stated that inclusion schools place special needs students in the same classrooms as students who don't have mental disabilities.

The problem with this is that there is too much generalization in the term "special needs". Pro gave three examples, but even within those three examples we can see vast differences:

1 - Asperger Syndrome

Asperger syndrome (AS) is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of complex neurodevelopment disorders characterized by social impairment, communication difficulties, and restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. [2]

2- Autism

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized, in varying degrees, by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors. [3]

3- Mental Retardation

Someone with intellectual disability has limitations in two areas:

Intellectual functioning. Also known as IQ, this refers to a person’s ability to learn, reason, make decisions, and solve problems.

Adaptive behaviors. These are skills necessary for day-to-day life, such as being able to communicate effectively, interact with others, and take care of oneself.

The average IQ is 100. A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75. [4]

[2] http://www.ninds.nih.gov...

[3] http://www.autismspeaks.org...

[4] http://www.webmd.com...

I've taken the liberty of sharing some quick summaries of each example and cited the sources for those interested in learning more about each. The point is to show that within the "special needs" grouping of students there are some major differences which would require differing qualities of care or assistance. We can't just throw every special needs kid into a regular classroom environment and expect them to flourish when, in reality, children with special needs vary greatly. Someone with mild asperger, for instance, would probably do moderately well in a normal classroom whereas someone with moderate autism who is nonverbal would require a specially trained educator who can communicate meaningfully though nonverbal means.

Ultimately, Pro needs to justify the generalization of such inclusion schools and provide proof showing how each individual case is met accordingly in the normal classroom setting. If parents are going to be obligated to send their children to such schools, then it's appropriate for Pro to show that effective care will be given.

III. Effects on Normal Students

In terms of the effectiveness in the teacher-student dynamic, there are several issues that I see with this resolution.

From the perspective of a normal students' parent: Is my child still getting the attention they would have received if there weren't students with special needs in the class?

From the perspective of a special needs students' parent: Is my child being taught according to their needs, is the teacher trained in teaching my child?

In regards to the first issue raised - it's understandable to assume that if there are children with special needs in such classrooms, there are going to be "special needs" that require attention at times, attention/time that would have normally been spent simply continuing on with the lesson if the students were not of the "special needs" group.

In regards to the second issue raised - would these children be taught by educators that specialize in their needs? I'm assuming so, but with the generalization issue I raised previously, how can the parents be sure that the teacher (who is also teaching normal students) is literally trained to attend to the needs of their child which might have unique needs?

Rebuttals

*Note: Some of my arguments shown above already cover points that I would use as a rebuttal, so I will keep my rebuttals focused on sections which were not covered in my initial arguments.*

IV. Resource Rooms

Pro states that, in some cases, special needs students may be pulled from the regular classrooms and placed in special rooms where their needs can be attended to.

The problem with this is that it then becomes no different that a non-inclusion school. My own highschool was the one which the county dedicated a portion of to the special needs program covering our entire county. My junior and senior year of highschool is filled with memories of the special needs students coming and going because my locker was in the same hallway as their classrooms. Not once can I recall there being any problems with these students having there own classrooms. It worked out extremely well for everyone involved. This raised the point which is that if we already have successful "special needs" programs in "regular" schools, why should we place an obligation on parents to send there children to "inclusion" schools? There is no logical reason. Especially when Pro admits that in these schools there are still cases where the special needs students sometimes require or have there own rooms.

V. Social side

Pro gives a few positive reasons for obligating parents to send there children to inclusion schools.

For normal students: Pro claims ...development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities and the enhancement of social status with non disabled peers.

The issue is that the same thing happened to me and nearly everyone I knew at my highschool as well. Due to our school having the special needs students in the middle of the main locker hallway, we were all exposed to these students and interacted with them. I see no reason to obligate parents to send there children to inclusion schools when such beneficial impacts can occur in normal schools as well.

The same goes for the benefits listed for the special students in regards to social interaction. We literally interacted with them in-between every class. At the same time, some of those students suffer horrendous social anxiety, so it was nice because those students weren't forced to interact with us if they didn't wish to. In inclusion schools, I suppose they expect such students to suddenly overcome paralyzing anxiety huh?

In regards to the study cited by Pro, after reading it over myself I'm quite shocked at the lack of actual evidence. In the words of the study itself: only one study has directly investigated this issue in depth. How can we be sure the evidence presented is bias-free? Without repeatability, such studies are not yet fully verified.

VI. About justification

Pro is depending heavily on emotional appear here. I see nothing in terms of legal and moral justification for such an obligation.

In Closing,

I now return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Rizkaa

Pro

Ok, I will start the second round.

Now, I want to rebut all points that con said in the first round with my arguments.

1. About moral obligation. Parents had obligation in moral to fulfill their children's need. Beside for fulfill need like eat and drink, they also had obligation for their children in social and education. They should give education for their children to bring them life harmony in the real environment with normal people in order to can mingle in that environment as good people. And with this, also make them more can handle their shortage because they usually life in the real environment that make them aware that they must can put the good things in right place and decrease to do the bad things. Parents also had obligation to fulfill needs : needs of love, needs to feel safe, needs to self esteem, needs to feel freedom, etc. And don't forget that the children can't always depend to their parents. Parents also should let them and guide them live independent to be people in the real environment as people that had the same right with normal people. And inclusion school is also support to actualize the moral obligation it self with so many good activities between normal student with student with 'special needs'. So, to send their children who has disabilities to inclusion school is needed because with this, their child will more confident to stare the real world, no more feel discriminative (because as we know they are different but that we must realize that they have same right like us).

About legal obligation.
The children who has 'special needs' had rights : accessibility and safety in transportation, architecture, and the physical environment; equal opportunities in independent living, education, and housing; and freedom from abuse, neglect, and violations of patients' rights.[1] Effective civil rights legislation is sought in order to secure these opportunities and rights.[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org....
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities offers sufficient standards of protection for the civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights of persons with disabilities on the basis of inclusion, equality and non-discrimination. It makes clear that persons with disabilities are entitled to live independently in their communities, to make their own choices and to play an active role in society.
http://www.ohchr.org...
So, like what I said before, as parent they should do their job with fulfill the children needs and rights.

The children who has 'special needs' had rights : accessibility and safety in transportation, architecture, and the physical environment; equal opportunities in independent living, education, and housing; and freedom from abuse, neglect, and violations of patients' rights.[1] Effective civil rights legislation is sought in order to secure these opportunities and rights.[1][2] http://en.wikipedia.org....
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities offers sufficient standards of protection for the civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights of persons with disabilities on the basis of inclusion, equality and non-discrimination. It makes clear that persons with disabilities are entitled to live independently in their communities, to make their own choices and to play an active role in society.
http://www.ohchr.org...
So many countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, etc has regulation about send children who has 'special needs' to inclusion school. So, it's very clear that parent had obligation (moral and legal) to send their children to inclusion school.

2. Con said that "grouping of students there are some major differences which would require different qualities of care or assistance." I think, con didn"t understand about mechanism study in inclusion school for student who has "special needs". So, I will explain it for my lovely readers and especially for con. First about regular school it self. Actually, I already define it in first round but con still didn't understand about this. Like what I said in 1st round, in regular school student who has 'special needs' not all in the school with normal people. They also get special education and treatments after school hour with special teacher. About treatments inclusion school never forget it. So, they have 2 curriculum in school (curriculum like normal people and special curriculum for them). Teacher who teach there, must comply all provisions from inclusion school it self. So, don't think too much about this and don't worry because teachers there certainly know about procedure to teach them. What con worries before about 'teacher' is answered. Second, regular school only accept 2 students with 'special needs' each classroom. It means that atmosphere for learning will do well and so, don't again make them as a reason "they interfere normal people to learn". well, what con said about asperger syndrome, autism and mental retardation, is answered. They will get special treatment after school hour. And in regular school it self, only accept 2 students with 'special needs' and it's not give bad influence in learn hour for normal people.

Now, I will give you cases in Vietnam.

Vietnam is example that inclusion school is more effective and good for children with 'special needs' than special school. They prove that children with disabilities can join with normal people, build good relationship, be more independent in that environment and people there also can more tolerance about that 'different' thing. Vietnam was success to realize 'education for all'. System inclusion education considered is system education that humane. Because in inclusion school they get teach about knowing, understanding and learning usually with that different. Salamanca declaration also gave 'policy guidance' that able as reference for other countries in the world for build system inclusion education. http://majalahdiffa.com...

So, what con said about his experience in his school is very funny. Why? Because he just talk about his experience in his environment without tell us about what school is that, where he live, when he meet them, who are them (what kind of disability?) and more. I mean, his experience is not strong. Who's care about your experience because I don't know that is true or not, that's your imagine or not. And please remember again my limitation is in premiere school NOT in senior high school. Why I limit there? Because, premiere school is the first stage to build good characters for children and also education that give in this level not hard. I mean, they only learn about basically. So, con is just talk about assuming without prove it in the fact and con NEVER give us the solution. Con just rebut my arguments without tell the solution.

The last thing is what I said in the 1st is totally logic. And about what I said in 1st round about justification, I'm not use totally my emotional there. What arguments I said there is logic and based on the fact. Well, essentially is con can't rebut my arguments in justification because I believe that everyone especially con totally agree with my arguments about justification.

That's enough from me in 2nd round. Thank you.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parents

1) Moral justification

Pro seems to present two cases for the moral justification of placing such a burden as an obligation on parents.

First is that they have an obligation to fulfill the child's needs in terms of social and education. This does nothing to justify the obligation for sending them to inclusion school because parents are already fulfilling the obligation of social and education needs by sending them to school with "special needs" programs. This does nothing to justify the obligation of sending them solely to inclusion schools. In America, we are legally bound to give children an education - be it sending them to public/private school or homeschooling them. The justifications like need of love, need to feel safe, need for self-esteem, need for feeling freedom are all covered by parents sending there children to these 'special needs' programs within regular schools. Furthermore, such reasons can be accomplished even without school - parents can easily give there children love, safety, etc., that isn't something that is ONLY accomplished by sending them to an inclusion school.

Remember, Pro needs to justify sending them to inclusion schools - not just school in general. Pro also assumes that such children can live independently, but again - Pro is working on a faulty premise that all of these special needs children actually have the means to do so. In reality, that isn't always the case. Some of them are dependent on care 24/7 and literally cannot live independently, such as the case with those who are physically challenged.





In the images above, it is evident that in some cases - mental retardation also exists in children with physical disabilities that literally depend on others 24/7.

Lastly, Pro states that inclusion school has many good activities between normal students and students with 'special needs'. How does this morally justify parents being obligated to send there kids there when regular schools with 'special needs' programs can accomplish the same thing?

Ultimately, I believe Pro fails to understand what moral justification is. A majority of this is spent presenting reasons that can all be accomplished in non-inclusion schools with special needs programs or by parents simply being good parents. The fact that Pro believes inclusion schools are the only means to achieving such things is baseless.

2) Legal Justification

Pro presents two paragraphs showing the rights of these children. The problem with this justification is that the current system of "special needs" programs in regular schools accomplish the act of respecting these rights. These programs were developed specially to ensure that such rights are being protected. [1] What's really interesting about the link shared is that in such programs - there are inclusion classes! So, why we should force an obligation on parents when there is already the option of having an inclusion experience in normal schools? Pro presents the fact that Indonesia and Vietnam have regulation about sending children with special needs to inclusion schools, but that does nothing to justify the legal obligation of sending children to inclusion schools on a global level. Pro is not arguing for a specific country but rather for all schools everywhere. Considering cases like America where parents would thus be obligated to send there children to inclusion schools should this resolution be affirmed, I have yet to see any grounds for legally obligating them to do so.

At this point, Pro has done nothing but share what the rights' are of children with special needs. There has been no justification given aside from Pro stating that there are regulations in two 3rd world countries. Additionally, I have shown that there are already inclusion programs in these normal schools. Obligating parents to send them solely to inclusion schools, when such programs already exist in normal schools with 'special needs' programs is nothing more than an unfair burden placed on parents in an attempt to fix a system that isn't really broken.

[1] http://www.greatschools.org...

II. Special needs

My opponent states that the generalization is not a real concern because classes in inclusion schools only accept two students with 'special needs' per classroom. This is absurd. In Palm Beach County, the district where I attended school, the 'special needs' class had, at minimum, 12 kids per class (all roughly the same age). For Pro, it would take 6 different classes in the same grade to teach those 12 kids since they only allow 2 kids per classroom. In smaller school, I doubt there are 6 classes for each subject - rather, it's reasonable to assume there'd be 6 classes per grade. One class for science, one for math, etc... so right off the bat I am left questioning how they'd even be able to handle the massive influx of 'special needs' students should this resolution actually be affirmed and the obligation put into effect.

In America, 1 out of every 68 kids is autistic. [2] If we assume that America's population is around 300 million, then that means over 4 million children would be flooding into the inclusion school system. I cannot fathom how they'd handle such an influx should there be an obligation put into effect for parents to send there children there. Also, this doesn't include the other 'special needs' children that aren't necessarily autistic.

[2] http://www.autismspeaks.org...

III. Effects on Normal Students

Pro states that inclusion schools have two curriculum's, and that the teachers know about procedure to teach them. This raised the question, once more, of how that is any different from programs found in regular schools? I've already shown how these regular schools also have inclusion programs. Pro also states that students with special needs get treatment after school hours, yet in the programs we have in modern America, these children will receive special treatment during all hours of the day. I don't see how inclusion school stands alone in this regard.

IV. Resource Rooms

Pro failed to address this rebuttal in which I show that inclusion schools pulling out disruptive 'special needs' students is no different from what regular schools with 'special needs' programs do. By placing them in resource rooms, they are literally no different from the programs that already exist today. Furthermore, I don't need to provide Pro with my personal information because I've already shared a link above which shows the programs in these normal schools which covers literally all of her inquiries. For the record though, I attended William T. Dwyer highschool in Palm Beach County, Florida and proof of the county having programs in the schools can be found here: http://www.palmbeachschools.org...

Or, additionally here: http://news.palmbeachschools.org...

The second link deals directly with my school, and the first link provides proof for the entire county.

Lastly, Pro attempts to back-pedal by claiming that her resolution focuses solely on premiere schools... the problem with that is that the resolution shows no such limitation. The resolution Pro is affirming says "school" not premiere school. When someone states "school" it falls into the realm of anything that can be considered "school" including elementary, middle, or highschool.

V. About justification

Pro claims she used logic in the last paragraph instead of emotional appeal. I see no methods of induction or deduction in that paragraph though. All I see is Pro claiming they have rights including building relationships, receiving love and respect, and having freedom. There is nothing logical about that whatsoever, and I challenge Pro to prove me wrong.

Debate Round No. 3
Rizkaa

Pro

Ok, first I will rebut all point what con said in the 3rd round.

1. look, the children disability need 2 things in school. There are education and social. So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school for disabilities' give same effect. If con understand about system in Inclusion school, he should know that the mechanism education in inclusion school and 'special school' is different. And automatically give different effect. In inclusion school, like what I said before there are 2 curriculum. First is curriculum like normal people and the second is special curriculum for their self. But, in 'special school' just give one curriculum that is special curriculum. It means, 'special school' only give special education but not same like education for normal people. And 'special school' not give education social to live in real environment they are like isolated from environment out there. Ok, maybe they learn it, but just theory without do it in the reality. So, it's not effective. In the school, they just interaction with same environment and content of that's environment are some people like teachers, student who has disabilities. But, in inclusion school, they get special education for themselves, also get education like normal people and the important thing is they learn social education with direct. They interaction with normal people in the real environment and this is 'IMPORTANT' education for them. So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school' can accomplish same thing and has same programs. Because clearly, my argument about difference between inclusion school and 'special school' based on the fact not assuming. well, in this point con totally wrong.
Like what I said in the 2nd round and 3rd round that The point is 'Build Tolerance each other."

2. So, if con read all my arguments with focus, his assuming about "inclusion schools are the only means to achieving such things is baseless." is totally wrong. That is clearly based on the fact. I already give you fact that happen in Vietnam. And inclusion school there was success made children with disabilities can more mingle with normal people in the real environment. But 'special school' not given this for children because they only feel in small environment (Not real environment).

3. con said that "children with physical disabilities that literally depend on others." But I think, con didn't understand what I said in the 3rd round "And don't forget that the children can't always depend to their parents. Parents also should let them and guide them live independent to be people in the real environment as people that had the same right with normal people." I mean is independent for join in the real environment not about treatments for them. We all know that people who has disabilities need good treatment. But unfortunately, con misrepresented Word 'Independent' it self.

The children who has disabilities can't always depends other people for choose or do something. Simple example : To join and introducing with normal people, the children can't always ask their teacher to help them full. But, they should do this on basis of their willingness and try to do that with their self. With notes, the teachers still guide them.

So, the mean of Independent like what i said in the 2nd round, Independent Living does not mean that we want to do everything by ourselves or that we do not need anybody or like to live in isolation. Independent Living means that we demand the same choices and control in our every-day lives that our non-disabled brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted. We want to grow up in our families, go to the neighborhood school, use the same bus as our neighbors, work in jobs that are in line with our education and interests, and raise families of our own. We are profoundly ordinary people sharing the same need to feel included, recognized and loved.

4. My limitation here is very clearly : Inclusion school in sub-types regular inclusion and in premiere school. In the 2nd and 3rd round already give you the reasons.

First, because regular inclusion more better than full inclusion because in the regular inclusion, they still get special treatments after school hour. And the second about primary school. In debate, Pro has right to give the limitation for make this debate more focus to what problem it is. Unfortunately, this problem give different influence in each stage (Elementary, middle or high school). And in this debate, I can give you a limitation in primary school because will give different influence between problem will happen in Primary school. Because premiere school is the first stage to build good characters for children and also education that give in this level not hard. the right times not too early or not too late to try join in the real environment. Con said that "Pro also states that students with special needs get treatment after school hours, yet in the programs we have in modern America, these children will receive special treatment during all hours of the day." Well, I want to tell you that is the good point in inclusion school. Like what I said before, after school hours they get special treatments (other curriculum). In this curriculum, teacher will teach special education the children who has disabilities that relevant with 'disabilities' it self. So the eduction in the second curriculum is depends what kind of disabilities it self. Unfortunately, con didn't explain more what kind of special treatment during all hours of the day in modern America. In modern America, Special treatment like what? Well, that's a silly thing because I already answered it before, about why they had 2 curriculum for the children with 'special needs'. Unfortunately, Con gave not clearly about the information. So, con failed to rebut my argument about "special treatment."

5. If con said about class division for children disabilities, every inclusion school has each provision about class division. Because every country has different provision about that. In Indonesia, provision about class division is one class for all subject. So, it's not a problem. Because the important thing is school can handle it and learning process is going well. And then about accept 2 student with 'special needs' to inclusion school. Generally they accept 2 students. But if your problem is 'so many children disabilities in country', that is silly thing. Government should pick minimal 1 school in each region to be inclusion school. What con talk about this point is not important! The important things in this motion is parent should send their children to inclusion school. And remember, every country has different provision.

6. About Justification. What I said in the 2nd round about justification is logic because make sense. I talk about human rights. Unfortunately, con didn't rebut although 1 thing about human rights like what I said before. Because, the illogical thing : Their rights reduce or even written off.
From the 2nd round until the last round, I already gave you all logic argument and based on the fact with prove cases that inclusion school was success in some country and this time is turn to make this also success in other country in the world. Unfortunately, con sometimes talk about assuming not based on the fact, the silly thing is talk us about his personal experience without give the prove and more explain and con DIDN'T TOLD US CLEARLY ABOUT THE SOLUTION so I presume that con try to refuse inclusion school without the best solution. Conclusions is Inclusion school is the best solution for children who has disabilities.

So, I believe that if parents send their children with disabilities to inclusion school, it will give them better education than in special school. And with this, no more discrimination, no more reduce their right, They get same right like us and they will life harmony with us in the real environment.

That's enough from me. Thank you :)
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parents

Pro has failed to present any justification for the moral and legal bounds that would be placed on parents if this resolution was affirmed.

The attempt to justify such an obligation, on Pro's part, boiled down to education and social needs/rights. I've already pointed out how both are met under the current education system found in America. Education is already a legal requirement and social is a natural outcome of placing hundreds or thousands of students in the same school buildings. This includes "special needs" students who get social fulfillment through interaction with their fellow students, teachers, and yes - even normal students - when they participate or qualify for the inclusion programs which are offered at normal schools with 'special needs' programs. [1]

"So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school for disabilities' give same effect."

I never said they give the same effect, I said that they both accomplish the same thing in regards to protecting/respecting those rights. If a current system is accomplishing the same thing as the one Pro is presenting, I see no reason to literally obligate parents to send there children to inclusion schools. There is no basis for doing so.

"In the school, they just interaction with same environment and content of that's environment are some people like teachers, student who has disabilities."

False. This is working under the false premise that normal schools don't have inclusion programs. I've already shown that they do [1] - hence this argument is irrelevant.

"So, con can't said that inclusion school and 'special school' can accomplish same thing and has same program."

They don't have to accomplish the *same thing* - they just have to uphold the rights for education and social needs (according to you), which they fully do. Thus your arguments for justifying this obligation are unfounded as they are currently being met by the system in place.

"I already give you fact that happen in Vietnam. And inclusion school there was success made children with disabilities can more mingle with normal people in the real environment."

Then you should debate that inclusion schools be an obligation for parents in Vietnam, because here in America we already have such programs in place. There is literally no need for American parents to be obligated to send there kids to inclusion school. This is a major issue that Pro has failed to overcome throughout the debate - the fact that this resolution covers everywhere... and when certain countries already have sufficient systems - like America - then there is no need to place such an obligation on parents.

"Parents should let them live independent to be people in the real environment as people that had the same right with normal people; the children who has disabilities can't always depends other people for choose or do something. "

I fully agree, but my point was to show that some of these 'special needs' children aren't capable of being independent due to physical disabilities restricting there ability to function properly. You stated they are capable of living independently and I presented pictures showing individuals who can not live independently. Pro also fails to recognize that some 'special needs' children are severe cases that might not have the means to live independently due to mental restrictions as well. [2]

"Independent Living means that we demand the same choices and control in our every-day lives that our non-disabled brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted."

This is irrelevant to the resolution, in which, the focus is forcing parents by means of legal or moral bounds to send their children to inclusion schools. This is the problem with your obligation... it's a relative desire on your part, not something that is actually beneficial to everyone on a global scale, especially when considering that in some of the more advanced nations like America already see to it that these individuals have such freedoms (if they are mentally/physically capable of doing so).

[1] http://www.greatschools.org...

[2] http://www.enquirer.com...

II. Special needs

In response to the massive influx of students into the inclusion school system, Pro simply replies:

"In Indonesia, provision about class division is one class for all subject. So, it's not a problem. Because the important thing is school can handle it."

Pro fails to realize we are debating on a global scale, not a single country. Assuming it'd work in other countries based on the fact that it worked in Indonesia - which is reasonably behind the curve in comparison to American school systems - is nothing more than just that, an assumption.

"Government should pick minimal 1 school in each region to be inclusion school."

The government in America already does a similar thing where they have 1 or 2 schools in the county that specialize in 'special needs' programs. Once again, Pro fails to consider how things are already in effect in other countries.

III. Effects on Normal Students &
IV. Resource Rooms

Pro attempts to rebut this point by saying that it's not the same as regular schools because there are two types of inclusion. My point is that if the inclusion schools she is promoting place 'disruptive students' in 'resource rooms' then it is no different from the separation that occurs in normal schools in regards to kids who are not capable of acting appropriately in normal classroom environments.

In regards to Pro's limitation on solely primary schools, Pro continues to back-pedal by claiming that:

"In debate, Pro has right to give the limitation for make this debate more focus to what problem it is."

I fully agree, but that right is found within either the resolution itself, or the first round where clarifications are given. Pro never said this debate focuses solely on premiere school-aged children. In the resolution, it clearly states "school", not "premiere school". In Pro's first round, it also says nothing of this limitation. Thus, Pro is doing nothing but adding limitations mid-debate in order to strengthen her case. In reality - it's nothing but a cheap tactic that doesn't work. Pro is limited, just as I am, to the resolution. I would recommend Pro create more specific resolutions in the future.

"after school hours they get special treatments (other curriculum). In this curriculum, teacher will teach special education the children who has disabilities that relevant with 'disabilities' it self. So the education in the second curriculum is depends what kind of disabilities it self."

Great. In America, they have specialized curriculum's as well, as evident in my previous links. Since Pro insists I failed to address this, please allow me to share yet another link: http://insideschools.org...

In this link, you'll note that they have specialists and courses which are offered and tailored for addressing the individual needs of the student.

V. About justification

Pro assumes I need to provide a solution instead of just negating her affirmative case. That is not my burden to carry as Con. Furthermore, America, as I've shown, already has the solution in effect with it's modern school system and 'special needs' programs.

Pro relies on the rights' as justification for obligating parents to send there children to inclusion schools. You'll note in the first argument that I've already shown how those rights are not being violated, and how those needs are currently being met.

There is no reason whatsoever to impliment this obligation onto parents who are already living in a society where the rights and needs of 'special needs' children are already being met.

Pro failed to present both moral and legal justifications, which were key since her resolution contained the term obligation.



Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
From experience, "inclusion" is the single worst idea in education.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
RizkaaBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case simply did not show that parents have an *obligation* to send their children to inclusion schools. His case, at best, could only have affirmed that sending them to inclusions schools is beneficial, which does not translate to obligation. Con showed that sending kids to non-inclusion schools sufficiently fulfills a parent's legal/social obligations.