THBT Parent should have obligation to send their children to inclusion school

I will start by defining some key terms, followed by my arguments and rebuttals. Definitions & Clarifications Obligation: An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. [1][1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro has defined Inclusion Schools as that which teaches students of normal intelligence and capabilities alongside students with special needs such as Asperger Syndrome, Autism, or Mental Retardation. Alongside = Same classrooms. ArgumentsI. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parents.Pro has a large burden to uphold, and it is found solely in the key term: Obligation. By introducing that term into the resolution, Pro has now taken on the burden of having to justify both the moral and legal bounds placed on parents should this resolution be affirmed. In short:1- what moral justification is there for placing such an obligation on parents? 2- what legal justification is there for placing such an obligation on parents?If Pro cannot give sufficient justification for placing such an obligation on parents, then the resolution automatically fails to be affirmed. II. Special Needs Pro stated that inclusion schools place special needs students in the same classrooms as students who don't have mental disabilities. The problem with this is that there is too much generalization in the term "special needs". Pro gave three examples, but even within those three examples we can see vast differences: 1 - Asperger SyndromeAsperger syndrome (AS) is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of complex neurodevelopment disorders characterized by social impairment, communication difficulties, and restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior. [2]2- AutismAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized, in varying degrees, by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors. [3]3- Mental Retardation Someone with intellectual disability has limitations in two areas:Intellectual functioning. Also known as IQ, this refers to a person’s ability to learn, reason, make decisions, and solve problems.Adaptive behaviors. These are skills necessary for day-to-day life, such as being able to communicate effectively, interact with others, and take care of oneself. The average IQ is 100. A person is considered intellectually disabled if he or she has an IQ of less than 70 to 75. [4] [2] http://www.ninds.nih.gov...[3] http://www.autismspeaks.org...[4] http://www.webmd.com...I've taken the liberty of sharing some quick summaries of each example and cited the sources for those interested in learning more about each. The point is to show that within the "special needs" grouping of students there are some major differences which would require differing qualities of care or assistance. We can't just throw every special needs kid into a regular classroom environment and expect them to flourish when, in reality, children with special needs vary greatly. Someone with mild asperger, for instance, would probably do moderately well in a normal classroom whereas someone with moderate autism who is nonverbal would require a specially trained educator who can communicate meaningfully though nonverbal means.Ultimately, Pro needs to justify the generalization of such inclusion schools and provide proof showing how each individual case is met accordingly in the normal classroom setting. If parents are going to be obligated to send their children to such schools, then it's appropriate for Pro to show that effective care will be given. III. Effects on Normal StudentsIn terms of the effectiveness in the teacher-student dynamic, there are several issues that I see with this resolution. From the perspective of a normal students' parent: Is my child still getting the attention they would have received if there weren't students with special needs in the class?From the perspective of a special needs students' parent: Is my child being taught according to their needs, is the teacher trained in teaching my child? In regards to the first issue raised - it's understandable to assume that if there are children with special needs in such classrooms, there are going to be "special needs" that require attention at times, attention/time that would have normally been spent simply continuing on with the lesson if the students were not of the "special needs" group. In regards to the second issue raised - would these children be taught by educators that specialize in their needs? I'm assuming so, but with the generalization issue I raised previously, how can the parents be sure that the teacher (who is also teaching normal students) is literally trained to attend to the needs of their child which might have unique needs? Rebuttals*Note: Some of my arguments shown above already cover points that I would use as a rebuttal, so I will keep my rebuttals focused on sections which were not covered in my initial arguments.*IV. Resource RoomsPro states that, in some cases, special needs students may be pulled from the regular classrooms and placed in special rooms where their needs can be attended to. The problem with this is that it then becomes no different that a non-inclusion school. My own highschool was the one which the county dedicated a portion of to the special needs program covering our entire county. My junior and senior year of highschool is filled with memories of the special needs students coming and going because my locker was in the same hallway as their classrooms. Not once can I recall there being any problems with these students having there own classrooms. It worked out extremely well for everyone involved. This raised the point which is that if we already have successful "special needs" programs in "regular" schools, why should we place an obligation on parents to send there children to "inclusion" schools? There is no logical reason. Especially when Pro admits that in these schools there are still cases where the special needs students sometimes require or have there own rooms. V. Social sidePro gives a few positive reasons for obligating parents to send there children to inclusion schools. For normal students: Pro claims ...development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities and the enhancement of social status with non disabled peers. The issue is that the same thing happened to me and nearly everyone I knew at my highschool as well. Due to our school having the special needs students in the middle of the main locker hallway, we were all exposed to these students and interacted with them. I see no reason to obligate parents to send there children to inclusion schools when such beneficial impacts can occur in normal schools as well. The same goes for the benefits listed for the special students in regards to social interaction. We literally interacted with them in-between every class. At the same time, some of those students suffer horrendous social anxiety, so it was nice because those students weren't forced to interact with us if they didn't wish to. In inclusion schools, I suppose they expect such students to suddenly overcome paralyzing anxiety huh? In regards to the study cited by Pro, after reading it over myself I'm quite shocked at the lack of actual evidence. In the words of the study itself: only one study has directly investigated this issue in depth. How can we be sure the evidence presented is bias-free? Without repeatability, such studies are not yet fully verified. VI. About justificationPro is depending heavily on emotional appear here. I see nothing in terms of legal and moral justification for such an obligation. In Closing, I now return the floor to Pro. Thank you.