2001
DOI: 10.1080/09687590120070042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neutrality as a Moral Standpoint, Conceptual Confusion and the Full Inclusion Debate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
2

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
28
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Some concerns focused on whether most general classroom teachers had skills or time to reward good behavior. Other concerns focused on how full inclusion (or something close to it) might endanger the ties between students with hearing impairments and the Deaf community that many adults with hearing impairments identified with (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994;Gallagher, 2001;MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996;Zigmond et al, 1995).…”
Section: Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Osers) 2002)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some concerns focused on whether most general classroom teachers had skills or time to reward good behavior. Other concerns focused on how full inclusion (or something close to it) might endanger the ties between students with hearing impairments and the Deaf community that many adults with hearing impairments identified with (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994;Gallagher, 2001;MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996;Zigmond et al, 1995).…”
Section: Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Osers) 2002)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some concerns focused on whether most general classroom teachers had skills or time to reward good behavior. Other concerns focused on how full inclusion (or something close to it) might endanger the ties between students with hearing impairments and the Deaf community that many adults with hearing impairments identified with (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994;Gallagher, 2001;MacMillan, Gresham, & Forness, 1996;Zigmond et al, 1995).Legally and politically in the 1990s, full inclusion advocates faced an uphill struggle.Legally, the ambiguous wording of the least restrictive environment mandate did not clearly require full inclusion. Despite claims to the contrary, full inclusion advocates were unable to convince judges that the law required full inclusion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Najčešće navođen razlog zašto inkluziju treba primjenjivati (bez obzira na nalaze) tiče se njene postulirane moralne ispravnosti (Brantlinger, 1997;Gallagher, 2001;Thomas & Glenny, 2002). Odnosno: "[p]itanje inkluzije je, na kraju, neizbježno moralno" (Gallagher, 2001, p. 650), pri čemu se njeno procjenjivanje "odvija na području vrijednosti i načela, a ne rezultata" (Žiljak, 2013, str.…”
Section: Inkluzija Kao Moralni Imperativunclassified
“…The claim made here is that traditional special education is historically linked to the development of nations, a perspective on childhood as the responsibility of the state and a school system that first and foremost has a responsibility to develop good citizens for the society. Inclusive education is alternatively part of a historical development connected to romanticism, an understanding of childhood as something that has a value in itself, and to a school system that aims at fostering self-formation that does not necessarily support the established society (Gallagher 2001). It is a heated debate within the academic area of special education about the role and position of special education (Hausstätter 2011).…”
Section: The Moral Argument In Special Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%