Inclusion: The Pros and Cons
Executive Summary
Few issues in education generate more discussion, confusion, or
apprehension than the topic of inclusion. It is an issue that has
outspoken advocates on all sides, whether staunchly for, avowedly
against, or somewhere in between. Certainly, for a school or district
to change and accommodate a more inclusive approach to providing
services to students with disabilities as well as a host of other
"at-risk" students, and do it in a way that ensures the success of all,
will require significant restructuring. Inclusion is more than
reconfiguring special education services. It involves an "overhaul" of
the entire educational system. Special education and regular education
faculty/staff roles and relationships will change, as will the
traditional rules under which "things" happen within the classroom,
campus, and district. Therefore, understanding the issues and
ramifications prior to undertaking such a restructuring effort will be
useful.
For many, the concept of inclusion remains somewhat vague. What does
inclusion actually mean? What does it look like? Is it the same as
full inclusion or mainstreaming? What is wrong with special education
the way it is now? What changes would need to be made to adopt a more
inclusive approach for special education services? What are the
overarching issues-the pros and cons? This installment of Issues ...
about Change will investigate many of these issues surrounding
inclusion. Specifically, a short historical synopsis of the
development of special education services will be presented, followed
by a clarification of terms. Philosophical, educational, and legal
arguments for and against greater inclusion are also presented. The
paper concludes with a short discussion of implications for educational
practitioners and district policy makers. Finally, in addition to an
extensive list of references cited in the article, a list of other
resources is included below for those interested in further
investigation.
Historical Background
Reynolds (1988) uses the term "progressive inclusion" to describe the
evolution of services to those with various disabilities. He and
others (Winzer, 1993; Stainback, Stainback, & Bunch, 1989b) point out
that as the United States emerged as a nation, no educational services
were available to people with disabilities. In the early 1800s,
residential institutions, or asylums, began to emerge in order to
accommodate those with hearing, visual, mental, or emotional
impairments. Although access to those facilities was far from
universal, such institutions remained the primary educational option
for the disabled until special day schools came into fashion in the
early 1900s. These allowed greater, more localized access and somewhat
better services to individuals with disabilities.
During the 1950s and 1960s, parents of children with disabilities
organized to pressure courts and legislatures for changes in
educational services available to their children. They began to seek
access to public schools as an issue of civil rights for those with
disabilities. Among the results of these efforts was The Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142), which mandated that
all children, regardless of disability, had the right to a free,
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. As a
result, resource rooms and self-contained classrooms for those with
disabilities expanded in public schools. PL 94-142 was updated in 1991
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In 1986, Madeleine Will, then-Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (under the U.S.
Department of Education), in an annual report regarding the status of
special education programs, proposed what has been called the Regular
Education Initiative. Citing concerns about some unintended negative
effects of special education "pull-out" programs, her proposal
suggested that greater efforts to educate mildly and moderately
disabled students in the mainstream of regular education should be
pursued (Will, 1986). Since then, support has grown for all students,
including those with severe and profound disabilities, to be included
and educated in classrooms with non-disabled peers, preferably in
schools that they would attend if not disabled.
Determining the current status of educational placements of students
with disabilities is difficult. Information varies depending upon the
sources pursued. However, from the U.S. Department of Education's 16th
Annual Report on Implementation of the IDEA (data from the 1991-1992
school year), it appears that about 35 percent of students with
disabilities are attending school in regular classes. Of the remaining
65 percent, 36.3 percent receive special educational services in a
resource room setting and 23.5 percent are in self-contained classes
specifically tailored for students with disabilities. A little over 5
percent of students identified as needing special educational services
receive them in settings outside the regular school setting (separate
school, residential facility, homebound, or hospital).
Toward a Definition of Inclusion
Inclusion is not a new concept in education. Related terms with a
longer history include mainstreaming, integration, normalization, least
restrictive environment, deinstitutionalization, and regular education
initiative. Some use several of these terms interchangeably; others
make distinctions. Admittedly, much of the confusion over the issue of
inclusion stems from the lax usage of several of these related terms
when important differences in meaning exist, especially among the most
common-mainstreaming, integration, inclusion, and full inclusion.
Mainstreaming and other, older terms are sometimes associated primarily
with the physical assimilation of students with disabilities with their
non-disabled peers. This may be more a matter of "connotative baggage"
rather than intent. Nevertheless, mainstreaming assumes that students
with disabilities may share the same physical space (classroom,
playground, etc.) with those who have no disabilities only when they
are able to do the same activities as everyone else with minimal
modifications. Further, the primary responsibility for these students'
education remains with their special education teacher.
According to Rogers (1993), mainstreaming
has generally been used to refer to the selective placement of special
education students in one or more "regular" education classes ...
[Mainstreaming generally assumes] that a student must "earn" his or
her opportunity to be mainstreamed through the ability to "keep up"
with the work assigned by the teacher to the other students in the
class. (p. 1)
For some students with more severe disabilities, this has meant that
their opportunities to be around non-disabled peers have been limited
to (at most) lunch and recess; others may also have been integrated
into physical education, music, art, and/or vocational programs.
Typically, however, only students with mild disabilities have been
allowed to participate in the traditional core academic content areas
(mathematics, language arts, science, history, etc.).
Integration is a carry-over from the civil rights/racial desegregation
legislation of the 1960s and before. Consequently, integration is
primarily a legal term. It brings a greater implication than simply
the physical blending of different ethnicities on a bus, at a
workplace, or in a classroom. For schools this has meant not only
busing children for appropriate ethnic balance demographically, but
also seeking ways of fostering social and academic interactions. Just
as in racial desegregation, the term "integration," as used by special
educators, conveys the idea that students with disabilities ought to be
desegregated from "pull-out" programs, self-contained classrooms,
special schools, or institutions, and integrated into the realm of
regular classrooms. Further, this change is meant to be not only in
terms of physical proximity, but of academic and social integration as
well. Sailor (1989) also suggests that special education integration,
parallel to racial desegregation, should incorporate the notion that
classrooms reflect naturally occurring percentages of those with
disabilities (approximately 10 percent) in relation to those without
disabilities. This position, however, is not universally held.
Inclusion is a somewhat more values-oriented term than integration, its
legal counterpart. "The true essence of inclusion is based on the
premise that all individuals with disabilities have a right to be
included in naturally occurring settings and activities with their
neighborhood peers, siblings, and friends" (Erwin, 1993, p. 1).
Supporters of inclusive education use the term
to refer to the commitment to educate each child, to the maximum
extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would
otherwise attend. It involves bringing the support services to the
child ... and requires only that the child will benefit from being
in the class (rather than having to keep up with the other students).
(Rogers, 1993, p. 1)
Note that both Erwin and Rogers stress the idea, held by many inclusion
advocates, that students with disabilities should not just be educated
with non-disabled peers, but that these educational efforts should be
accomplished in the child's neighborhood school-"in the school and
classroom he or she would otherwise attend." This means a commitment
to move needed services and resources to the child with a disability
rather than to place the child in a more removed or segregated setting
where services and resources are located. An inclusive education
program allows daily and/or weekly time in the school schedule for
regular and special educators to collaborate. It seeks to expand the
capacity of regular educators to be able to teach a wider array of
children, including those with various disabilities, and to expand the
roles of special educators as consultants as well as teachers. Also,
in contrast to mainstreaming, the primary responsibility for the
education of students with disabilities in an inclusive environment
rests with the regular classroom teacher rather than the special
education teacher. This does not, however, mean that special educators
have no direct involvement in the education of these students. It
simply means that the ultimate responsibility for the education of all
students in a classroom resides with the classroom teacher in charge.
For inclusion to work, educational practices must be child-centered.
This means that teachers must discover where each of their students are
academically, socially, and culturally to determine how best to
facilitate learning. Indeed, child-centered teachers view their role
more as being facilitators of learning rather than simply transmitters
of knowledge. Therefore, skills in curriculum-based assessment, team
teaching, mastery learning, assessing learning styles (and modifying
instruction to adapt to students' learning styles), other
individualized and adaptive learning approaches, cooperative learning
strategies, facilitating peer tutoring and "peer buddies," or social
skills training are important for teachers to develop and use in
inclusive classrooms. Soffer (1994) emphasizes that these are not just
good special education practices, but are good practices for all
teachers.
The remaining term needing definition is full inclusion. Though many
use inclusion and full inclusion interchangeably, others make
distinctions. Those who advocate for full inclusion believe "that
instructional practices and technological supports are presently
available to accommodate all students in the schools and classrooms
they would otherwise attend if not disabled" (Rogers, 1993, p. 2).
Consequently, according to full inclusion advocates, it is very seldom,
if ever, appropriate for a special education student to be outside the
mainstream classroom setting. On the other hand, there are inclusion
supporters who believe that numerous intervening variables make such an
"absolutist" stand to be dangerous and irresponsible. According to
them, the unique nature of individual disabilities, the school context,
the capacity of teachers in terms of training and experience, and the
availability of resources should all be taken into consideration before
determining appropriate placement. However, they believe that all
schools should be moving toward the greater inclusion of students with
disabilities into mainstream classroom settings.
To summarize these terms as used in reference to special education,
mainstreaming generally refers to the physical placement of students
with disabilities with their non-disabled peers. The assumption is
that their disabilities are able to be accommodated with relatively
minimal modifications. Integration is primarily a legal term connoting
the actual assimilation of different groups together (disabled and
non-disabled), rather than just the facilitation of physical proximity.
This may require more than minor modifications. Inclusion is the more
popular educational term referring to the move to educate all children,
to the greatest possible extent, together in a regular classroom
setting. It differs from the term full inclusion in that it also
allows for alternatives other than the regular classroom when more
restrictive alternatives are deemed to be more appropriate.
Underlying Assumptions Surrounding Greater Versus Lesser Inclusion
Perhaps the strongest argument for greater inclusion, even full
inclusion, comes from its philosophical/moral/ethical base. This
country was founded upon the ideals of freedom and equality of
opportunity. Though they have not been fully achieved, movement toward
their fuller realization continues. Integration activists point to
these ideals as valid for those with disabilities, too. Even opponents
agree that the philosophical and moral/ethical underpinnings for full
inclusion are powerful. For instance, Lieberman (1992) points out that
the selling points for full integration are emotionally powerful.
They do not lend themselves to be easily challenged ... The arguments
speak in ideals for all humanity. Images are presented that show
friendship, loyalty, togetherness, unity, helpfulness without
monetary compensation, care-giving from the heart, building a society
based on mutuality of interest. As my fellow man goes, so go I.
Only a cynic would take this on. (p. 13)
Jay Heubert (1994) suggests that there are several points on which
proponents and opponents of inclusion agree. There is general
consensus that, with appropriate staff development and support, more
students with mild disabilities could be served in regular classrooms.
It is also generally believed that better research, improved
coordination of services between special and regular education, and
administrative support are crucial for serving students with
disabilities.
Heubert (1994) also outlines some of the major philosophical
assumptions that proponents and opponents hold relative to their
attitudes about inclusion. Those who favor greater inclusion view
labeling and segregation of students with disabilities as bad. They do
not view those with disabilities as distinctly different from others,
but rather limited in certain abilities (everyone simply has strengths
and weaknesses that vary from person to person). According to these
inclusion proponents, segregated special education services are too
expensive, disjoint, and inefficient. They believe that many who have
been identified as being disabled are actually not disabled at all.
They also believe that those students who are disabled can be best
served in mainstream classes because:
- teachers who have only low-ability students have lower expectations;
- segregated programs tend to have "watered-down" programs;
- students in segregated programs tend not to have individualized
programs;
- students in segregated programs tend to stay in segregated
programs;
- most regular education teachers are willing and able to teach
students with disabilities; and
- the law supports inclusive practices.
In contrast, those who prefer to maintain special education students in
resource rooms, special classrooms, or other, more restrictive settings
believe that labeling students is not bad if the labels are accurate
and lead to providing appropriate services. They believe that students
with disabilities are distinctly different from their non-disabled
peers and, therefore, need different, specialized services. They fear
that the reason many are "pushing" inclusion is to save money (special
education services are costly). Inclusion opponents believe that
special education identification services are sophisticated and
generally reliable. According to Huebert (1994), they also believe
many or most students with disabilities are better served outside the
mainstream classroom setting because:
- special education teachers have higher expectations for their
students;
- special education curricula are appropriate for their intended
students;
- individualization is more likely to occur in smaller classes with
specialized teachers than in the regular classroom;
- regular teachers do not want special needs students in their
classrooms; and
- students with disabilities have never been well-served in regular
education, and there is nothing to indicate that teachers are any more
able to deal with them now than they were previously.
Educational Support for Inclusion
Supporters argue the educational merits of inclusion from two
perspectives. First, the weaknesses of special education, as it
currently is structured, are highlighted. Generally speaking,
literature reviews of special education efficacy studies suggest "no
advantages for special education placements" (Reynolds, 1988, p. 355).
More specifically, the National Association of State Boards of
Education (1992) reports the following discouraging information:
- 43 percent of students in special education do not graduate;
- youth with disabilities have a significantly higher likelihood of
being arrested than their non-disabled peers (12 percent versus 8
percent);
- only 13.4 percent of youth with disabilities are living independently
two years after leaving high school (compared to 33.2 percent of their
non-disabled peers); and
- less than half of all youth with disabilities are employed after
having been out of school one to two years.
In contrast to these statistics about students with disabilities, the
overall high school dropout rate is estimated to be between 18 and 21
percent (McCaul, Donaldson, Coladarci, & Davis, 1992). Further, the
overall unemployment rate of high school dropouts in 1992 was 11.4
percent, while students who graduated but did not go on to college had
an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent (Kids Count Data Book, 1994).
Another frequent criticism of the current special education system
deals with the issue of "labeling effects" on students with
disabilities. Inclusion standard-bearers suggest that the very act of
labeling a student as "special" frequently lowers expectations and
self-esteem (Will, 1986). Further, special education placement in
"pull out" programs "has [all too often] left many students with
fragmented educations and feeling that they neither belong in the
general education classroom nor the special education classroom"
(National Association of School Boards of Education, 1992). The impact
of such stigmas, lowered expectations, and poor self-esteems on school
learning is significant (Lipsky & Gartner, 1992).
Stainback, Stainback, and Bunch (1989) criticize the current special
education system as inefficient. They suggest that schools have had to
organize a separate system for their students with disabilities. This
dual system spends
considerable time, money, and effort ... to determine who is 'regular'
and who is 'special' and into what 'type' or category of
exceptionality each 'special' student fits. This continues to be
done in spite of the fact that a combination of professional opinion
and research indicates that classification is often done unreliably,
that it stereotypes students, and that it is of little instructional
value. (p. 18)
The separate administrative arrangements for special programs
contribute to a lack of coordination, raise questions about
leadership, cloud areas of responsibility, and obscure lines of
accountability within schools ... The problem at the building level
is further compounded by special program teachers working ... in
resource rooms. This isolation minimizes communication between
special teachers and regular classroom teachers, resulting in a lack
of coordination between ongoing classroom instruction and the
specially designed remedial instruction. (Will, 1986, pp. 8-9)
Further, because of specific eligibility criteria, some students "fall
through the cracks."
Finally, Stainback, Stainback, and Bunch, and others (National
Association of State Boards of Education, 1992) suggest that this dual
system does not adequately prepare students with disabilities for the
"real world," because the "real world" is not divided into "regular"
and "special." Consequently, segregated placements with limited
interactions between those with disabilities and their non-disabled
peers further handicap special education students.
Taken together, these arguments regarding the overall weakness of
current special education practices are compelling.
Given the weak effects of special education instructional practices
and the social and psychological costs of labeling, the current
system of special education is, at best, no more justifiable than
simply permitting most students to remain unidentified in regular
classrooms and, at worst, far less justifiable than regular classroom
placement in conjunction with appropriate in-class support services.
(Skrtic, 1991, p. 156)
The second educational argument is that "there is now substantial
evidence that most, if not all, children with disabilities, including
children with very severe disabilities, can be educated appropriately
without isolation from peers who do not have disabilities" (Ringer &
Kerr, 1988, p. 6). A substantial body of research on school district
efforts at inclusion, primarily in the form of case studies, now
exists. Although these studies are criticized by full inclusion
opponents as more anecdotal than good research, the overall impact of
these studies has tended to provide additional momentum for the
inclusion movement. According to Lewis (1994), students with
disabilities in inclusive environments "improve in social interaction,
language development, appropriate behavior, and self-esteem" (p. 72).
Inclusion supporters also suggest that as regular and special education
faculty work cooperatively together in integrated settings, their
coordinated work tends to raise their own expectations for their
students with disabilities, as well as student self-esteem and sense of
belonging. One additional argument frequently proposed for the further
integration of those with disabilities into mainstream classes is that,
by interacting with their disabled peers, students will have
opportunities to develop positive attitudes toward, tolerance of,
understanding of, and true friendships with those who are different
from themselves. Indeed, studies show that the general student
population are more accepting, understanding, and socially aware of
differences when they are incorporated into integrated classroom
settings (Staub & Peck, 1994-1995; McGregor, 1993).
Concerns About and Arguments Against Inclusion and/or Full Inclusion
From regular education.
Not everyone is excited about bringing students with disabilities into
the mainstream classroom setting. Tornillo (1994), president of the
Florida Education Association United, is concerned that inclusion, as
it all too frequently is being implemented, leaves classroom teachers
without the resources, training, and other supports necessary to teach
students with disabilities in their classrooms. Consequently, "the
disabled children are not getting appropriate, specialized attention
and care, and the regular students' education is disrupted constantly."
He further argues that inclusion does not make sense in light of
pressures from state legislatures and the public at large to develop
higher academic standards and to improve the academic achievement of
students. Lieberman (1992) agrees:
We are testing more, not less. We are locking teachers into
constrained curricula and syllabi more, not less. The imprint of
statewide accountability and government spending [is increasingly]
based on tangible, measurable, tabulatable, numerical results ... The
barrage of curriculum materials, syllabi, grade-level expectations
for performance, standardized achievement tests, competency tests,
and so on, continue to overwhelm even the most flexible teachers.
(pp. 14-15)
By expanding the range of ability levels in a classroom through
inclusion, Tornillo (1994) argues, teachers are required to direct
inordinate attention to a few, thereby decreasing the amount of time
and energy directed toward the rest of the class. Indeed, the range of
abilities is just too great for one teacher to adequately teach.
Consequently, the mandates for greater academic accountability and
achievement are unable to be met.
A poll conducted by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in West
Virginia revealed that "78 percent of respondents think disabled
students won't benefit from [inclusion]; 87 percent said other students
won't benefit either" (Leo, 1994, p. 22). Citing numerous concerns
expressed by many of its national membership, the AFT has urged a
moratorium on the national rush toward full inclusion. Their members
were specifically concerned that students with disabilities were
"monopolizing an inordinate amount of time and resources and, in some
cases, creating violent classroom environments" (Sklaroff, 1994, p. 7).
They further cite that when inclusion efforts fail, it is frequently
due to "a lack of appropriate training for teachers in mainstream
classrooms, ignorance about inclusion among senior-level
administrators, and a general lack of funding for resources and
training" (p. 7). One additional concern of the AFT and others
(Tornillo, 1994; Leo, 1994) is a suspicion that school administration
motives for moving toward more inclusive approaches are often more of a
budgetary (cost-saving) measure than out of a concern for what is
really best for students. If students with disabilities can be served
in regular classrooms, then the more expensive special education
service costs due to additional personnel, equipment, materials, and
classrooms, can be reduced. "But supporters [argue] that, while
administrators may see inclusion as a means to save funds by lumping
together all students in the same facilities, inclusion rarely costs
less than segregated classes when the concept is implemented
responsibly" (Sklaroff, 1994, p. 7).
From special education.
Regular educators are not the only ones concerned about a perceived
wholesale move toward full inclusion. Some special educators and
parents of students with disabilities also have reservations. The
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), a large, international
organization of special educators, parents, and other advocates for the
disabled, issued a policy statement on inclusion at their annual
convention in 1993. This statement begins with a strong endorsement
for a continuum of services to be available to children, youth, and
young adults with disabilities. It is only after making the point
quite clear that services to the disabled, including various placement
options besides the regular classroom, are to be tailored to individual
student need that the policy actually addresses inclusion.
The concept of inclusion is a meaningful goal to be pursued in our
schools and communities ... [C]hildren, youth, and young adults with
disabilities should be served whenever possible in general education
classrooms in inclusive neighborhood schools and community settings.
(CEC policy ..., 1993)
Clearly, the concern of this broad-based advocacy organization is not so
much with inclusion as with full inclusion. However, some parents of
children with disabilities and others have serious reservations about
inclusive educational practices. Their concerns are forged out of
their struggles to get appropriate educational services for their
children and those of others. They are concerned that, with the shift
of primary responsibility for the education of these children from
special education teachers to regular classroom teachers, there will be
a loss of advocacy. Further, by dispersing children with special needs
across the school campus and district, services and resources will be
"diluted," and programming will be watered down. Indeed, like many in
regular education, special education advocates assert that in some
instances educational programming in a regular classroom setting may be
totally inappropriate for certain individuals. They acknowledge that
the ideals on which inclusion rests are laudatory. However, they
remain skeptical that the present overall, broad-based capacities and
attitudes of teachers and school systems toward accommodating students
with disabilities into regular classrooms is adequate. They argue that
the current
special education system emerged precisely because of the
non-adaptability of regular classrooms and that, since nothing has
happened to make contemporary classrooms any more adaptable ...,
[inclusion] most likely will lead to rediscovering the need for a
separate system in the future. (Skrtic, 1991, p. 160)
In addition to a more generalized concern by some across the field of
special education in relation to how inclusive practices become
operationalized in schools, stronger concern about and resistance to
inclusion has been raised within specific disability groups. Perhaps
the greatest concern and opposition comes from many in the deaf
community. Cohen (1994) is one of many who suggest that inclusion is
inappropriate for most students with hearing impairments. He notes
that "communication among peers is crucially important to the cognitive
and social development for all children" (p. 35). However, because
"most deaf children cannot and will not lip-read or speak effectively
in regular classroom settings ..., full access to communication-and
therefore full cognitive and social development-includes the use of
sign language" (p. 35). He points to supportive research suggesting
that greater intellectual gains are made by deaf students enrolled in
schools for the hearing impaired, where a common language and culture
may be shared, than for similarly disabled students in mainstream
classroom settings. Even with an educational sign-language interpreter
(of which there is a shortage throughout the United States), students
with impaired hearing miss out on many of the experiences targeted as
rationales for inclusive environments by inclusion advocates (e.g., a
sense of belonging, opportunities to interact with peers). Social,
emotional, and even academic development is difficult when
communication must be facilitated through an interpreter. Informal
communications and friendships with peers, participation in
extracurricular activities, dating, etc. are also not well-facilitated
when a third-party interpreter is needed to communicate. Consequently,
many argue that the more appropriate educational placement option for
the hearing impaired is a residential school with a "community" of
others similarly disabled.
Lieberman (1992) points out that many advocates (primarily parents) for
those with learning disabilities also have significant concerns about
the wholesale move toward inclusion. Their concerns stem from the fact
that they have had to fight long and hard for appropriate services and
programs for their children. They recognize that students with
learning disabilities do not progress academically without
individualized attention to their educational needs. These services
have evolved primarily through a specialized teacher working with these
students individually or in small groups, usually in a resource room
setting. Many successful practices have been researched and identified
(Lyon & Vaughn, 1994). Special education professionals and parents
alike are concerned that regular education teachers have neither the
time, nor the expertise to meet their children's needs. "The learning
disabilities field seems to recognize that being treated as an
individual can usually be found more easily outside the regular
classroom" (p. 15).
Some parents of students with more severe disabilities are concerned
about the opportunities their children will have to develop basic
life skills in a regular classroom setting. They are also cautious
about inclusion because of fears that their children will be
ridiculed by other students.
The issue of inclusion is also passionately debated in one other area of
exceptionality-students who are gifted/talented. It is discussed under
the concept of "heterogeneous grouping" rather than "inclusion."
However, the issue is still one of providing appropriate services in an
integrated versus a segregated setting. Some advocate, with research
support, that gifted students are better served when they are able to
work with other gifted students (usually in a "pull-out" program).
Others promote, also with research support, the position that gifted
students benefit more from being heterogeneously grouped with other
students of various levels of ability (Tompkins & Deloney, 1994).
Sapon-Shevin (1994) points out that "students who have been identified
as 'gifted' or as 'disabled' need not be segregated from others in
order to have their needs met, nor dumped with others without
differentiation or appropriate treatment" (p. 8). However, their
parents and other advocates have fought for specialized services
(occurring in segregated settings), and they are reticent to allow what
is perceived as a move backward.
Input from Legislation and Litigation
Legally, integration is a civil rights issue, not a philosophical or
educational trend. Federal courts have made clear that if a child
can "feasibly" be integrated, segregation is illegal, regardless of
the school district's philosophical perspective on integration.
(Ringer & Kerr, 1988)
As mentioned previously, parents of children with disabilities, advocacy
groups, and others became more vocal and politically active in the
1950s and 1960s. Court decisions and legislative efforts began to
change the way America treated its disabled. Their efforts were
significantly strengthened with the passage of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142). This act, signed into law by
Gerald Ford in 1975, embraced two hallmark components for children with
identifiable disabilities. It mandated that all children were to be
afforded a "free appropriate education." Further, this public
education was to be delivered in the "least restrictive environment."
Since then, schools, parents, and others have struggled with finding
the balance between the appropriateness of educational services and the
location/environment in which those services are found. Essentially,
inclusion is primarily an issue addressing this second component of
least restrictive environment.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (PL 101-476),
which updated PL 94-142, further strengthened these two components by
strongly encouraging that students with disabilities be educated in
their home-school, regular-education classroom whenever possible.
Specifically, it mandates:
- to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities,
including children in public or private institutions or other care
facilities, are educated with children who are non-disabled;
- special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occur only when
the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily; and
- the educational placement of each child with a disability is as close
as possible to the child's home.
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, ¤300.550,
¤300.552, 20 U.S.C. ¤1412 & 1414)
It should be noted that the law does not abolish all settings except the
regular classroom. Indeed, it requires more restrictive alternatives
when the regular classroom has been shown to be inappropriate, thus the
need for a continuum of placement options from the regular classroom to
institutionalization. However, the intent of the law is that the
rightful place for educating students, regardless of special need, is
with neighborhood peers in a regular education classroom setting unless
that setting is inappropriate. "In plain language, these regulations
appear to require that schools make a significant effort to find an
inclusive solution for a child" (Rogers, 1993, p. 2). But just how far
are schools required to go? In recent years, several decisions
indicate that the courts are giving more serious consideration to the
inclusion of children with even severe disabilities in mainstream
education. However, none of the decisions has ordered full inclusion,
and several have alluded to the possibility that mainstream education
may not be appropriate as a given student advances through school.
Currently, the legal system is depending heavily on the reasoning in
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989) to make decisions
regarding inclusion.
Daniel R.R. was a six year-old boy who had been identified for special
education because of moderate retardation. His developmental age was
between two and three years. He was placed in a pre-kindergarten for
half a day and a special education class for half a day. However, when
Daniel's kindergarten teacher reported that he was not succeeding
because he required almost constant attention and was not mastering
skills, the school wanted to remove Daniel from the regular classroom
and place him in special education full time. The parents protested
the change in placement and requested a hearing. Because Daniel was
found to be receiving very little educational benefit from the regular
class and was diverting too much of the teacher's time, the hearing
officer found for the school district. The case was taken to the
district court, which affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The
parents then appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In
deciding the case, the Circuit Court developed a two-pronged test to
determine if the district's actions were in compliance with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
- Can education in the regular classroom with the use of supplemental
aids and services be achieved satisfactorily?
- If it cannot, has the school mainstreamed the child to the maximum
extent appropriate?
Because the court found that the district had tried several
alternatives to accommodate Daniel in the regular class, it determined
that the district had complied with the mainstreaming preference
expressed in IDEA and affirmed the decisions of the hearing officer and
the district court.
The Daniel R.R. test has been used to decide whether a school district
is meeting the letter and the spirit of the IDEA's stated preference
for mainstreaming in such highly visible cases as Greer v. Rome City
School District (1991), Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of
Clementon School District (1993), and Board of Education, Sacramento
City Unified School District v. Rachel Holland (1992, 1994).
Particularly in the latter decision, the court further refined the
first "prong" of the Daniel R.R. test to include four factors that
schools must consider before removing a student to a more segregated
setting:
- academic benefit-To what degree is the child benefiting academically
from placement in a regular classroom setting?
- nonacademic benefit-To what degree is the child benefiting in
nonacademic ways from placement in a mainstream setting (e.g., language
development, appropriate behavior models, social development)?
- classroom management-To what degree is the child disruptive to other
students or to what degree is the teacher's time being occupied with
the student with a disability to the detriment to other students? [The
issue of employing supplemental aids and services (equipment,
technological, and human) must be taken into consideration.]
- cost-What is the financial burden placed on the school district
relative to the mainstreamed child versus a more segregated placement?
It appears that the current wisdom of the courts is relying on schools
to weigh and balance these factors in making placement decisions "in
good faith." Based on the facts of these cases and the resulting
decisions, school districts may improve decision making or, in some
cases, simply strengthen their positions in the case of disputes
through consciously attending to the following considerations:
- What modifications and supports in a regular class have been
considered and/or tried before a decision is made to segregate a
student with disabilities from mainstream education?
- When a child is removed from the mainstream, has each subsequent
possible placement in the continuum of services been considered and/or
tried in order that the child is as close to the mainstream as
possible?
- Are physical, emotional, and social hardships being placed on a
child who must move back and forth between the mainstream and special
education?
- Are there identifiable and coherent relationships between a
student's IEP goals, placement, and activities?
- What benefits can be provided in special education that cannot be
provided in the mainstream?
- What are the underlying assumptions regarding the kind of
instruction identified as needed for a child to be a successful
participant in life? Are these assumptions based on the highest
expectations for the child?
So What's A School Leader To Do?
The support for a more inclusive approach to providing special
educational services is significant. America's most basic values of
freedom and equality of opportunity for everyone, the weight of
significant educational research, and numerous legal mandates/court
decisions are all on the side of greater inclusion. However, full
inclusion, as outlined above, may be too extreme in that it actually
does not allow for more restrictive educational alternatives for
students whose educational needs may not be appropriately met in a
regular classroom setting.
On the other hand, there is widespread concern about the attitudes and
capacity of teachers and school organizations to provide appropriate
educational services in regular classrooms across America to those who
are not typical, mainstream, classroom students. These concerns are
primarily focused on the following issues:
- classroom teacher expertise to construct and deliver appropriate
educational services to those with disabilities efficiently and
effectively;
- classroom teacher and school administrator attitudes toward working
with students with disabilities;
- classroom teacher expertise to deal with inappropriate behaviors;
- the potential lowering of quality of educational services to all
students; and
- inadequate material, curricular, technological, and human
resources.
Before a school plunges headlong into such a major restructuring effort
as greater inclusion, the above concerns must be adequately addressed.
School leaders must put careful time and effort into the planning and
implementation process. In earlier editions of Issues ... about Change
(viz., Hord, 1991; Boyd, 1992), factors that increase the likelihood of
implementing a significant change successfully have been identified and
discussed. Specifically, school leaders must attend to six areas of
concern:
- developing and articulating a clear, shared vision of the change;
- planning and providing for necessary resources;
- identifying and providing staff development and training to develop
the skills needed to support and carry out the change;
- monitoring and evaluating (including monitoring of evolving
personnel concerns about the change through the implementation
process);
- providing ongoing consulting, coaching, and staff development to
further enhance staff capacity to accomplish the goals of the targeted
change; and
- working to create a school context that supports change.
In the case of implementing a more inclusive approach to providing
special education and other specialized services in the regular
classroom, several of these leader actions are important. School
leaders must work diligently to develop and impart a clear vision of
what an inclusive classroom looks like and how it functions. They must
give significant attention to providing the kinds of ongoing staff
development that expands the capacity of both regular and special
education teachers to serve students with a variety of disabilities in
a mainstream setting (e.g., cooperative learning strategies, team
teaching skills, collaborating/team-building skills, individualizing
instruction, mastery learning, identifying and adapting to different
learning styles). Resources must be provided, including time for
collaborative planning, support personnel that might be necessary,
materials, and assistive technologies. Finally, school leaders must be
mindful of the changing concerns that their staff, parents, and others
have as greater inclusion begins to be implemented. By attending to
these issues, a more inclusive educational system is possible.
RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The December 1994/January 1995 issue of Educational Leadership,
published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
(ASCD), is fully devoted to issues surrounding inclusion.
The Institute on Community Integration
109 Pattee Hall
150 Pillsbury Dr., SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612/624-4512
The Peak Parent Center
6055 Lehman Dr., Suite 101
Colorado Springs, CO 80918
719/531-9400
The Arc (formerly the Association for Retarded Citizens)
National Headquarters
500 East Border Street, Suite 300
Arlington, Texas 76010
817/261-6003
Arc contacts in the five-state region served by the Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL):
| Little Rock, Arkansas |
501/375-7770 |
| Baton Rouge, Louisiana |
504/927-0764 |
| Albuquerque, New Mexico |
505/883-4630 |
| Tulsa, Oklahoma |
918/582-8272 |
| Austin, Texas |
512/454-6694 |
References
Board of Education, Sacremento City Unified School District v. Rachel
Holland, 786 F. Supp. 874 (E.D.Cal. 1992).
Boyd, V. (1992). Creating a text for change. Issues ... about Change,
2(2). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
CEC policy on inclusive schools and community settings. (1993).
Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(4) (Supplement).
Cohen, O. (1994, April 20). 'Inclusion' should not include deaf
students. Education Week, p. 35.
Daniel R. R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.
1989).
Erwin, E. J. (1993, winter). The philosophy and status of inclusion.
Envision: A publication of The Lighthouse National Center for Vision
and Child Development, pp.1, 3-4.
Greer v. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688 (11th Cir. 1991).
Heubert, J. (1994, July/August). Assumptions underlie arguments about
inclusion. Harvard Education Newsletter, p. 4.
Hord, S. (1991). Leadership: An imperative for successful change.
Issues ... about Change, 1(2). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being. (1994).
Greenwich, CT: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Leo, J. (1994, June 27). Mainstreaming's 'Jimmy problem.' U. S. News
& World Report, p. 22.
Lieberman, L. M. (1992). Preserving special education...for those who
need it. In W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial
issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1992). Achieving full inclusion:
Placing the student at the center of educational reform. In W.
Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting
special education: Divergent perspectives. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Lyon, & Vaughn. (1994). Inclusion: Can it work for students with
learning disabilities? Unpublished manuscript.
McCaul, E.J., Donaldson, G.A., Jr., Coladarci, T., & Davis, W.E.
(1992). Consequences of dropping out of school: Findings from high
school and beyond. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (4),
198-207.
McGregor, G. (Fall, 1993). Inclusion: A powerful pedagogy. Front
Line, 2(1), 8-10.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October).
Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. (Report of NASBE Study
Group on Special Education). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School, 995
F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).
O'Neil, J. (1993, November). Inclusive education gains adherents.
ASCD Update, 35(9) , pp. 1, 3-4.
Reynolds, M. C. (1988, winter). Past, present, and future of school
integration. Minnesota UAP Impact, 1(2), 2. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 081)
Reynolds, M. C. (1988). A reaction to the JLD special series on the
regular education initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
21(6), 352-356.
Reynolds, M. C., & Birch, J. W. (1988). Adaptive mainstreaming: A
primer for teachers and principals (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Ringer, L., & Kerr, S. (1988, winter). Integration-the legal
imperative. Minnesota UAP Impact, 1(2), 2. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota, Affiliated Program on Developmental Disabilities. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 081)
Rogers, J. (1993, May). The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin,
no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan, Center for Evaluation,
Development, and Research.
Sailor, W. (1989). The educational, social, and vocational
integration of students with the most severe disabilities. In D.
K. Lipsky & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education (pp. 53-74).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Sklaroff, S. (1994, January 12). A.F.T. urges halt to 'full
inclusion' movement. Education Week, p. 7.
Skrtic, T. M. (1991, May). The special education paradox: Equity as
the way to excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-206.
Soffer, R. (March/April, 1994). Inclusion-It's not what you think.
ATPE News (Association of Texas Professional Educators), pp. 24,
28.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1988, winter). The role of research
in integration. Minnesota UAP Impact, 1(2), 2. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, Affiliated Program on Developmental
Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 081)
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., and Bunch, G. (1989). A rationale for
the merger of regular and special education. In S. Stainback, W.
Stainback, & Forest, M. (Eds.), Educating all students in the
mainstream of regular education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., and Bunch, G. (1989). Introduction and
historical background. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & Forest, M.
(Eds.), Educating all students in the mainstream of regular
education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1994-1995). What are the outcomes for
non-disabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), pp. 36-40.
Tompkins, R., & Deloney, P. (1994). Rural students at risk in
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Tornillo, P. (1994, March 6). A lightweight fad bad for our schools?
Orlando Sentinel.
Will, M. (1986, November). Educating students with learning
problems-a shared responsibility. Washington, DC: Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Winzer, M. A. (1993). The history of special education: From
isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University
Press.
Issues . . . about Change is published and produced quarterly Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory (SEDL). This publication is based on work sponsored by
the Office of Educational Research & Improvement, U.S. Department of Education
under grant number
RP91002003. The content herein does not necessarily reflect the views of
the department or any other agency of the U.S. government or any other source. Available in
alternative formats.
The Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory (SEDL) is located at 211 East Seventh Street, Austin, Texas
78701; (512)476-6861/(800)476-6861. SEDL is an Equal Employment
Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and is committed to affording equal
employment opportunities to all individuals in all employment matters.
This issue was written by Richard Tompkins and Pat
Deloney, Research Associates, Services for School Improvement, SEDL.
|
Issues...About Change Back Issues |
Strategies for Increasing School Success Program
|