The author notes that the importance of Italy’s experience is that “they have done it … They have made and continue to make systemic changes that encourage the valuing of all young people … that make it possible to simply stop separating people and then work on the problems as they arise.” In this way, integration is presented, not as a singular event, but as an effort that “will never be finished.”
Brown, Freda and Donna H. Lehr (Eds.). (1989). Integration for students
with profound disabillities. In Persons with Profound Disabilities:
Issues and practices. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
This chapter presents a rationale for the integration of students with
handicaps into the regular school, listing benefits for the integated
child, the family, students without disabilities, and professional staff.
The authors maintain that, in the United States, integration practice
lags behind federal law and that a major barrier is “philosophical
inertia”.
They conclude that, “While students with the most profound disabilities may pose particular integration challenges for schools and parents, their inclusion is not less possible nor less important than that of students with milder disabilities being placed into regular public school.”
Kunc, Norman. (1984 ). Integration: Being realistic isn’t realistic.
Canadian Journal for Exceptional Children, 1(1), pp. 4-8.
This article challenges the usefulness of the integration vs. segregation
debate. Ideological arguments which themselves constitute barriers to
integration include manipulation of the phrase “best interests of the
child”, an attitude of defeatism, the “limited time and energy”
argument, fear of social rejection
on behalf of students with handicaps, and a
“handicapped school system.”
