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

I. Justification of Moral and Legal Bounds placed on parents1) Moral justificationPro seems to present two cases for the moral justification of placing such a burden as an obligation on parents. First is that they have an obligation to fulfill the child's needs in terms of social and education. This does nothing to justify the obligation for sending them to inclusion school because parents are already fulfilling the obligation of social and education needs by sending them to school with "special needs" programs. This does nothing to justify the obligation of sending them solely to inclusion schools. In America, we are legally bound to give children an education - be it sending them to public/private school or homeschooling them. The justifications like need of love, need to feel safe, need for self-esteem, need for feeling freedom are all covered by parents sending there children to these 'special needs' programs within regular schools. Furthermore, such reasons can be accomplished even without school - parents can easily give there children love, safety, etc., that isn't something that is ONLY accomplished by sending them to an inclusion school. Remember, Pro needs to justify sending them to inclusion schools - not just school in general. Pro also assumes that such children can live independently, but again - Pro is working on a faulty premise that all of these special needs children actually have the means to do so. In reality, that isn't always the case. Some of them are dependent on care 24/7 and literally cannot live independently, such as the case with those who are physically challenged. In the images above, it is evident that in some cases - mental retardation also exists in children with physical disabilities that literally depend on others 24/7. Lastly, Pro states that inclusion school has many good activities between normal students and students with 'special needs'. How does this morally justify parents being obligated to send there kids there when regular schools with 'special needs' programs can accomplish the same thing? Ultimately, I believe Pro fails to understand what moral justification is. A majority of this is spent presenting reasons that can all be accomplished in non-inclusion schools with special needs programs or by parents simply being good parents. The fact that Pro believes inclusion schools are the only means to achieving such things is baseless. 2) Legal JustificationPro presents two paragraphs showing the rights of these children. The problem with this justification is that the current system of "special needs" programs in regular schools accomplish the act of respecting these rights. These programs were developed specially to ensure that such rights are being protected. [1] What's really interesting about the link shared is that in such programs - there are inclusion classes! So, why we should force an obligation on parents when there is already the option of having an inclusion experience in normal schools? Pro presents the fact that Indonesia and Vietnam have regulation about sending children with special needs to inclusion schools, but that does nothing to justify the legal obligation of sending children to inclusion schools on a global level. Pro is not arguing for a specific country but rather for all schools everywhere. Considering cases like America where parents would thus be obligated to send there children to inclusion schools should this resolution be affirmed, I have yet to see any grounds for legally obligating them to do so. At this point, Pro has done nothing but share what the rights' are of children with special needs. There has been no justification given aside from Pro stating that there are regulations in two 3rd world countries. Additionally, I have shown that there are already inclusion programs in these normal schools. Obligating parents to send them solely to inclusion schools, when such programs already exist in normal schools with 'special needs' programs is nothing more than an unfair burden placed on parents in an attempt to fix a system that isn't really broken. [1] http://www.greatschools.org...II. Special needs My opponent states that the generalization is not a real concern because classes in inclusion schools only accept two students with 'special needs' per classroom. This is absurd. In Palm Beach County, the district where I attended school, the 'special needs' class had, at minimum, 12 kids per class (all roughly the same age). For Pro, it would take 6 different classes in the same grade to teach those 12 kids since they only allow 2 kids per classroom. In smaller school, I doubt there are 6 classes for each subject - rather, it's reasonable to assume there'd be 6 classes per grade. One class for science, one for math, etc... so right off the bat I am left questioning how they'd even be able to handle the massive influx of 'special needs' students should this resolution actually be affirmed and the obligation put into effect. In America, 1 out of every 68 kids is autistic. [2] If we assume that America's population is around 300 million, then that means over 4 million children would be flooding into the inclusion school system. I cannot fathom how they'd handle such an influx should there be an obligation put into effect for parents to send there children there. Also, this doesn't include the other 'special needs' children that aren't necessarily autistic.[2] http://www.autismspeaks.org...III. Effects on Normal StudentsPro states that inclusion schools have two curriculum's, and that the teachers know about procedure to teach them. This raised the question, once more, of how that is any different from programs found in regular schools? I've already shown how these regular schools also have inclusion programs. Pro also states that students with special needs get treatment after school hours, yet in the programs we have in modern America, these children will receive special treatment during all hours of the day. I don't see how inclusion school stands alone in this regard. IV. Resource RoomsPro failed to address this rebuttal in which I show that inclusion schools pulling out disruptive 'special needs' students is no different from what regular schools with 'special needs' programs do. By placing them in resource rooms, they are literally no different from the programs that already exist today. Furthermore, I don't need to provide Pro with my personal information because I've already shared a link above which shows the programs in these normal schools which covers literally all of her inquiries. For the record though, I attended William T. Dwyer highschool in Palm Beach County, Florida and proof of the county having programs in the schools can be found here: http://www.palmbeachschools.org...Or, additionally here: http://news.palmbeachschools.org...The second link deals directly with my school, and the first link provides proof for the entire county. Lastly, Pro attempts to back-pedal by claiming that her resolution focuses solely on premiere schools... the problem with that is that the resolution shows no such limitation. The resolution Pro is affirming says "school" not premiere school. When someone states "school" it falls into the realm of anything that can be considered "school" including elementary, middle, or highschool. V. About justificationPro claims she used logic in the last paragraph instead of emotional appeal. I see no methods of induction or deduction in that paragraph though. All I see is Pro claiming they have rights including building relationships, receiving love and respect, and having freedom. There is nothing logical about that whatsoever, and I challenge Pro to prove me wrong.