Inclusion "mainstreams" physically, mentally, and multiply disabled children into regular classrooms. Back in the sixties and the seventies, disabled children were excluded all together from regular classrooms. Currently, the federal inclusion law, I.D.E.A. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), addresses children whose handicaps range from autistic and very severe to mild (I.D.E.A. Law Page). From state to state the laws of inclusion vary. The laws may permit the special needs children to be in regular classrooms all day and for all subjects or for just one or two subjects (Vann 31). Other times the state laws allow those with special needs to have aids with them to help them in the regular classrooms (Sornson). There are many more variations. The creators of inclusion had the right idea in mind, but it is misused by many administrators and teachers because they aren't focused enough on what the children really need. I believe that inclusion is not beneficial to normal children or special need students because of the difficult learning environment it creates.
             My oppositions leads a strong argument; every child should be able to experience a regular classroom in order to mature and socialize with other children in normal situations (Stussman 18). This is true; children need to be around other children in order to learn how to interact. In stating that, inclusion is one way to let children "mingle" and socially grow into adults who can communicate with the rest of the world. In March of 1997, "The Educational Digest" composed an article on Barak Stussman. She has mild cerebral palsy. She shared with the readers her story of how inclusion worked in her life. Barak retold how she felt deep sadness when she realized she was not "regular". This made her hate going to school (Stussman 19). Two important statements were made by Barak: "If children do not perceiv...