It is good educational practice to meet the individual needs of students. If regular education programs were doing the job properly, we would have no need to set up special education programs.
This statement begins with the indication that 'good educational practice' is to 'meet the individual needs of [our] students'. In assessing the pros to this statement, one must begin with the 'pros' of having a student's individual educational needs met. In an ideal situation, this would include an inclusive classroom that is both multi-culturally, racially and abilities diversified, to reflect the spectrum of the outside neighborhood environment. This type of classroom would foster learning through experiential knowledge, contact and dialogue among the participating students. This classroom would be equipped with facilities to accommodate the learning needs of all its students, well supplied with educational items and learning materials and financed in a manner that allowed students to learn freely no matter what it cost. The student/teacher ratio would permit a minimum of five and a maximum of ten students per teacher, allowing for acute individualized instruction. Each student, irregardless of ability, would have their education generated through an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP). This would promote a team responsibility among teacher, student, parents (and as required, others) with regular bi-annual meetings that determine if the child's individual educational needs are being met, what the long-term educational goals of the child are, and strategic planning regarding how to best meet those goals.
Unfortunately, the 'con' of this statement has a double-entendrT meaning for education. There are truly drawbacks to the assumption that regular education programs are doing a proper job and that they are good educational practice. The other 'con' is perpetrated by educators wherein the best and brightest students are swindled ...