Current Controversial Issues in Education, Essay Example

There are many very controversial issues surrounding the inclusion and treatment of students with disabilities in the educational system.  Problems arise with trying to decide how to properly handle students with specific disabilities and it can cause a strong rift between the intended actions and the actual abilities of the school system to perform these actions.  Children with disabilities are being improperly medicated, left to perform poorly on standardized tests and improperly disciplined with the school systems today.  These important controversial issues deserve strong research and analysis to decide why the issue is controversial and what can be done to help alleviate the problems that surround these issues.

One issue that is highly controversial in the education system is the debate over how to properly educate students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  In a recent study, scientists monitored the behaviors, symptoms and environments of United States and Canadian children that were diagnosed or had specific symptoms similar to that of ADHD.  The results showed that students with symptoms of ADHD were likely to repeat their current or future grade levels and that their test scores in math and reading were likely to significantly weaken due to these symptoms (Coile, par. 6).  These statistics are not surprising, which is a large focus among schools to create programs within the educational system to help educate and treat cases of ADHD so that the child is not left behind.  The authors of the previously mentioned study concluded by saying that “the severity of problems associated with ADHD and the pervasiveness of its symptoms suggest that efforts to find better ways to teach the relatively small number of children diagnosed with ADHD could have a larger payoff in terms of improving the academic outcomes of many children with milder symptoms” (Coile, par. 11).  Therefore, it is the job of the school system to provide better educational opportunities to assist these students so that they can avoid repeating a grade level and allowing a negative impact on standardized test scores that are crucial for graduation and college admittance.

This issue is very highly controversial, namely because of the improper diagnosis that young students are receiving on behalf of doctors.  Many of the symptoms of ADHD include extreme hyperactivity, short attention span, and inability to focus.  These symptoms can be attributed to a number of medical issues; however, ADHD “affect(s) an estimated 4 to 5 percent of children, ADHD is the most common chronic mental health problem among young children in the U.S.” (Coile, par. 1).  The diagnosis of ADHD and the prescription of drugs such as Ritalin, which help increase the attentiveness and the ability for children to focus, can lead to many harmful effects within such young children.  In fact, many people in opposition of prescribing drugs as a treatment for this disorder believe that the drugs actually cause more harm than if the child was not taking any drugs at all.  This is a much debated fact because evidence is clear to the contrary.

Evidence has been shown that student that have been diagnosed for having this disorder and that have been taking drugs to help treat the diseases show phenomenal improvements in school and on standardized tests.  The mother of a young boy in New York recently showed signs of improvement in his focus and attentiveness in school.  The mother described the situation as: “the teachers always had to have him by their right kneecap to keep him focused, but now they feel that he is very focused, an active participant and overall his academics are better” (Mann, 2009, par. 1).  This is just one example of where medication has improved a student’s ability to perform in an educational setting.  In a study performed on elementary school children, the researchers of the study reported that “of 594 children whose parents reported an ADHD diagnosis, those who took medication scored 2.9 points higher on standardized math tests and 5.4 points higher on reading tests than children with ADHD who were not taking medication” (Thomas, 2009, par. 2).  Clearly, in most cases drugs are able to help the students perform better in the classroom and achieve much higher test scores that those students that have been diagnosed with ADHD and receive no treatment.  Opponents still argue that by placing children on medication too many poor side effects can cause the child to experience additional problems that are far beyond the original diagnosis of ADHD.

There is also a common controversial issue that involves the inclusion of students with disabilities into activities and an educational setting with students that do not have such disabilities.  Teachers argue that it is extremely difficult to include a student into the classroom setting when they may be disruptive, unable to focus or pay attention, and may not be capable of learning a specific task when in such states of behavior.  Therefore, teachers argue that it is important for students with disabilities to be removed from the normal classroom until such behaviors can be controlled or the students is able to receive outside support and treatment to help bring them up to speed with the rest of the child’s peers.  Despite these arguments there are laws that have been designed to help children and people with disabilities to become included into everyday activities and not be discriminated against for their disabilities.  Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (Ed.gov, 2009, par. 3).  This government regulation monitors institutions with federal funding to make sure that students are not being discriminated against.  Furthermore, Section 504 provides: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” (Ed.gov, 2009, par. 3).

Larry Scadden, the president of the National Science Foundation, has been quoted as saying that “schools aren’t doing a very good job of recruiting and retaining students with disabilities” (Roos, 2002, par. 9).  In this situation, Scadden is referring to the number of post-secondary colleges and universities that are actively trying to recruit and retain students with disabilities within the science fields, such as engineering or biochemistry.  In fact, the National Science Foundation actually awarded the University of Minnesota a five-year grant for a program called “Access to Engineering” that is designed to specifically target students with disabilities and allow them the tools necessary to excel in their chosen fields (Roos, 2002, par. 13).  While external organizations are helping to increase the inclusion rate of children at the college level, schools continue to argue that it is very difficult with budgetary restraints and limited funding to help students with disabilities achieve in the public school systems.  Additional government support should be provided so that teachers in the classroom can be properly trained to handle students with varying disabilities or so that a special education curriculum can be developed within the school system.

As of late there has been a strong outcry in the equal rights community and parenting communities against schools for negative treatment against students with disabilities.  The most recent account of negative treatment by schools comes in the form of corporal punishment upon students with disabilities.  A recent report by the ACLU reported that “at least 41,972 students with disabilities were subjected to corporal punishment in US schools during that year” which account for 18.8% of all reported cases of corporal punishment (HRW.org, 2009, par. 3).  In other words, students with disabilities are more likely to be spanked when they are being punished that any other specific population of children within the school system.  This is a very startling statistic and shows that many children that may not have the ability to know the difference from right and wrong or have physical abilities like those of normal boys and girls are being cruelly punished in school for poor behaviors.

On the other hand, educational professionals argue that corporal punishment is crucial for keeping the students under control and out of trouble.  Some proponents of corporal punishment tactics even argue that it stems from Christian beliefs that God gives permission for using corporal punishment as a means in the educational setting.  “If corporal punishment advocates are correct, then the abandonment of spanking will significantly increase violence and criminal activity among the next generation of adults. Society will become more violent. More people will be victimized. We will have to build additional jails to hold all of the criminals” (ReligiousTolerance.org, 2009).  This argument makes a very logical point.  If the subject is turned back to the topic of ADHD as a form of disability among children, results have been shown that “these children also have an increased probability of grade repetition, enrollment in special education, and delinquency, which includes behaviors such as stealing, hitting people, or using drugs” (Coile, par. 6).  If this is truly the case with children with disabilities, then it is clear that educational professionals must use whatever means necessary to help control these students for the betterment of the entire educational institution, especially the child’s classmates, teachers and peers.

The true nature of the problem results from the negative issue of corporal punishment tactics being used on children with disabilities.  “For instance, some parents reported that students with autism became violent toward themselves or others following corporal punishment” (HRW.org, 2009 par. 5).  Under these circumstances, the use of corporal punishment as a form of discipline actually made matter much worse for these autistic children in the school systems.  Human Rights Watch also found that in seeking redress, parents were often powerless to prevent “a grossly disproportionate and fundamentally demeaning response to the child’s condition” (Chen, 2009, par. 5).  Children with disabilities need to be closely monitored and watched over for their protection and the protection of others in case the student becomes irrationally violent.  By using corporal punishment, the parents become completely powerless to protect their children and they view the punishment as extremely demeaning as a response to the disabled child’s condition.  This should definitely not be allowed in the education system because it takes away from the right of the child and the parents.  Furthermore, “Physical force is ineffective, violates children’s rights, and is especially egregious when used to punish students for their disabilities. More effective discipline, including positive behavioral supports, creates safe classrooms where children are able to learn” (HRW.org, 2009, par. 6).  For these reasons, corporal punishment should not be allowed as a common disciplinary tactic in the educational setting for children with disabilities.

Many of these highly controversial problems stem from the inability of people to understand the extent of the disabilities’ impacts on the child’s behavior and how to help the child successfully achieve in the classroom.  The goal, regardless of the situation, must be for teachers and educators to always help their students learn and grow to become successful adults in society.  Without this support system in an educational setting, parents are left to try to find alternative sources for solving these controversial issues and it can almost become an impossible task.  The schools must make a stronger effort to treat these children properly, discipline them in manners that do not demean them or make problems worse, and help suggest ways that students can perform better in the classroom with or without the use of medication as a solution.  These tasks are very crucial for the overall health of each and every child.

Works Cited

Chen, M. (2009, August 11). School of hard knocks: violent discipline and marginalized youth. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.racewire.org/archives/2009/08/school_of_hard_knocks_violent_1.html

Coile, C. (n.d.). The Effect of ADHD on educational outcomes. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10435.html

Ed.gov. (2009, March 27). Protecting students with disabilities. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html

HRW.org. (2009, August 10). US: Students with disabilities face corporal punishment at higher rates. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/07/us-students-disabilities-face-corporal-punishment-higher-rates

NCMSA.net. (1999). Impact of inclusion. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.ncmsa.net/ressum14.htm

Mann, D. (2009, April 27). Study: ADHD drugs may help boost child’s test scores. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://news.health.com/2009/04/27/adhd-drugs-test-scores/

ReligiousTolerance.org. (2009, March 30). Corporal punishment of children (spanking); all points of view. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm

Roos, G. (2002, January 31). Access to engineering education: a test of determination for students with disabilities. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Press/engineering.html

Thomas, J. (2009, April 27). Meds help kids with ADHD in classroom. Retrieved on September 28, 2009, from Web site: http://health.discovery.com/news/healthscout/article.html?article=626357&category=18&year=2009