I came across this video in a blog post entitled "Is Full Inclusion a Good Idea?".
And after watching the video, I completely understand why they felt the need to ask the question. Go ahead and watch - I found it both fascinating and appalling.
So tell me, please, how can anyone, for even one minute, suggest that this is "inclusion"?
Where was Peter's aide? They didn't really expect one teacher to handle him and the rest of the class, did they? Didn't he have an IEP (IPP)? A behavioral plan perhaps? Why where there so little consequences attached to his behavior?
I was shocked to see Peter get away with kicking the other boy in the face. And as the parent of a mentally challenged child, I would be mad as hell to have seen her "educated" in this manner. You and I know that they weren't doing Peter any favors. He needed to be taught appropriate behavior and that actions have consequences.
That they put the other students and his teacher through that was unbelievable. That they put Peter through that was unforgivable.
And how about teaching him that the way we interact with Dad (for example) is not the way we are to interact with other kids (the hug and kiss with the apology)? After watching the end of the video, I totally got why Peter would jump on the backs of the other students - it was a game he played with Dad.
I suppose it might be argued that at least some good ultimately came from their methods based on his behavior four months later, but ... really??
Perhaps we should spread this video around as an example of how NOT to educate our children.