Statement on the Ethical Perspective We Have Adopted
Based on both researched information as well as practical experience, we both agree that inclusion a necessary practice in the classroom setting. We believe that ALL students should be provided with the most personalized education possible. This may mean that they are present in a mainstream classroom for all of the day or part of the day. Each situation should be examined on a case to case basis rather than simply placing all students in a traditional classroom. In simpler terms, we believe that all students have the right to an education that is most beneficial for them and their personalized needs.
When attempting to ‘choose a side’ on this issue from an ethical perspective, two general theories can be applied: consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. Before analyzing inclusion from these viewpoints, we need to understand the meaning of each theory.
Consequentialist: “The rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of its consequences” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 11). A principle that is largely related to this theory is referred to as the principle of benefit maximization. This principle suggests that, “whenever we are faced with a choice, the best and most just decision is the one that results in the most good or the greatest benefit for the most people” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 11).
Non-consequentialist: Often refers to the ‘Golden Rule’ and is based on moral rules (Strike & Soltis, 2009).
From a consequentialist perspective, we would analyze the potential consequences of inclusive education. The consequence of inclusion may be positive for the student who was previously segregated in a special education classroom, however, what about the consequences for other people? For example, possible consequences for the other students could be that they no longer have as much 1 on 1 time with the teacher. In addition, a consequence for a teacher could be that they have to spend more time with one individual student rather than the entire class. Also, the teacher will have to spend more time planning and thinking of creative ways to reach all students. These are only a few of the possible consequences, but upon their analysis, it would appear that inclusion may not be the most beneficial choice for all.
From a non-consequentialist perspective, we might discuss inclusion in reference to the ‘golden rule.’ This may lead us to the conclusion that inclusion is the best option based on the moral obligation to, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 14). We, as teachers, expect to be treated equitably in our lives, and therefore we should provide the same service to our students. This decision to implement inclusion would be largely based on the principle of equal respect for persons which suggests that, “we regard human beings as having intrinsic worth and treat them accordingly” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 15).
When attempting to ‘choose a side’ on this issue from an ethical perspective, two general theories can be applied: consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. Before analyzing inclusion from these viewpoints, we need to understand the meaning of each theory.
Consequentialist: “The rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of its consequences” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 11). A principle that is largely related to this theory is referred to as the principle of benefit maximization. This principle suggests that, “whenever we are faced with a choice, the best and most just decision is the one that results in the most good or the greatest benefit for the most people” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 11).
Non-consequentialist: Often refers to the ‘Golden Rule’ and is based on moral rules (Strike & Soltis, 2009).
From a consequentialist perspective, we would analyze the potential consequences of inclusive education. The consequence of inclusion may be positive for the student who was previously segregated in a special education classroom, however, what about the consequences for other people? For example, possible consequences for the other students could be that they no longer have as much 1 on 1 time with the teacher. In addition, a consequence for a teacher could be that they have to spend more time with one individual student rather than the entire class. Also, the teacher will have to spend more time planning and thinking of creative ways to reach all students. These are only a few of the possible consequences, but upon their analysis, it would appear that inclusion may not be the most beneficial choice for all.
From a non-consequentialist perspective, we might discuss inclusion in reference to the ‘golden rule.’ This may lead us to the conclusion that inclusion is the best option based on the moral obligation to, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 14). We, as teachers, expect to be treated equitably in our lives, and therefore we should provide the same service to our students. This decision to implement inclusion would be largely based on the principle of equal respect for persons which suggests that, “we regard human beings as having intrinsic worth and treat them accordingly” (Strike & Soltis, 2009, p. 15).