Inclusion (education)

Not to be confused with Inclusion (disability rights).

Inclusion in education is an approach to educating students with special educational needs. Under the inclusion model, students with special needs spend most or all of their time with non-special needs students. Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms to separate students with disabilities from students without disabilities.

Implementation of these practices varies. Schools most frequently use the inclusion model for selected students with mild to moderate special needs.[1] Fully inclusive schools, which are rare, do not separate "general education" and "special education" programs; instead, the school is restructured so that all students learn together.[2]

Inclusive education differs from the 'integration' or 'mainstreaming' model of education, which tended to be concerned principally with disability and special educational needs, and learners changing or becoming 'ready for' or deserving of accommodation by the mainstream. By contrast, inclusion is about the child's right to participate and the school's duty to accept the child.

A premium is placed upon full participation by students with disabilities and upon respect for their social, civil, and educational rights. Feeling included is not limited to physical and cognitive disabilities, but also includes the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and of other forms of human differences.[3] Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett wrote, "student performance and behaviour in educational tasks can be profoundly affected by the way we feel, we are seen and judged by others. When we expect to be viewed as inferior, our abilities seem to diminish".[4]

Inclusion, integration and mainstreaming

Inclusion has different historical roots which may be integration of students with severe disabilities in the US (who may previously been excluded from schools or even lived in institutions)[5][6][7] or an inclusion model from Canada and the US (e.g., Syracuse University, New York) which is very popular with inclusion teachers who believe in participatory learning, cooperative learning, and inclusive classrooms.[8]

Inclusive education differs from the early university professor's work (e.g., 1970s, Education Professor Carol Berrigan of Syracuse University, 1985; Douglas Biklen, Dean of School of Education through 2011) in integration|integration and mainstreaming [9] which were taught throughout the world including in international seminars in Italy. Mainstreaming (e.g., the Human Policy Press poster; If you thought the wheel was a good idea, you'll like the ramp)tended to be concerned about "readiness" of all parties for the new coming together of students with significant needs. Thus, integration and mainstreaming principally was concerned about disability and ‘special educational needs’ (since the children were not in the regular schools) and involved teachers, students, principals, administrators, School Boards, and parents changing and becoming ‘ready for’ [10] students who needed accommodation or new methods of curriculum and instruction (e.g., required federal IEPs - individualized education program) [11][12] by the mainstream.[13][14][15]

By contrast, inclusion is about the child’s right to participate and the school’s duty to accept the child returning to the US Supreme Court's Brown vs. the Board of Education decision and the new Individuals with Disabilities Education (Improvement) Act (IDEIA). Inclusion rejects the use of special schools or classrooms, which remain popular among large multi-service providers, to separate students with disabilities from students without disabilities. A premium is placed upon full participation by students with disabilities, in contrast to earlier concept of partial participation in the mainstream,[16] and upon respect for their social, civil, and educational rights. Inclusion gives students with disabilities skills they can use in and out of the classroom.[17]

Fully inclusive schools and general or special education policies

Fully inclusive schools, which are rare, no longer distinguish between "general education" and "special education" programs which refers to the debates and federal initiatives of the 1980s,[18][19][20] such as the Community Integration Project [21] and the debates on home schools and special education-regular education classrooms;[22] instead, the school is restructured so that all students learn together.[23][24] All approaches to inclusive schooling require administrative and managerial changes to move from the traditional approaches to elementary and high school education.[25]

Inclusion remains in 2015 as part of school (e.g., Powell & Lyle, 1997, now to the most integrated setting from LRE) [26] and educational reform initiatives in the US [27] and other parts of the world. Inclusion is an effort to improve quality in education in the fields of disability, is a common theme in educational reform for decades,[28] and is supported by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006). Inclusion has been researched and studied for decades, though reported lighly in the public with early studies on heterogeneous and homogeneous ability groupings (Stainback & Stainback, 1989),[29] studies of critical friends and inclusion facilitators (e.g., Jorgensen & Tashie, 2000),[30] self-contained to general education reversal of 90% (Fried & Jorgensen, 1998),[31] among many others obtaining doctoral degrees throughout the US.

Classification of students and educational practices

Classification of students by disability is standard in educational systems which use diagnostic, educational and psychological testing, among others. However, inclusion has been associated with its own planning, including MAPS which Jack Pearpoint leads with still leads in 2015 [32] and person-centred planning with John O'Brien and Connie Lyle O'Brien who view inclusion as a force for school renewal.[33]

Inclusion has two sub-types:[34] the first is sometimes called regular inclusion or partial inclusion, and the other is full inclusion.[35]

Inclusive practice is not always inclusive but is a form of integration. For example, students with special needs are educated in regular classes for nearly all of the day, or at least for more than half of the day.[35] Whenever possible, the students receive any additional help or special instruction in the general classroom, and the student is treated like a full member of the class. However, most specialized services are provided outside a regular classroom, particularly if these services require special equipment or might be disruptive to the rest of the class (such as speech therapy), and students are pulled out of the regular classroom for these services. In this case, the student occasionally leaves the regular classroom to attend smaller, more intensive instructional sessions in a resource room, or to receive other related services, such as speech and language therapy, occupational and/or physical therapy, psychological services, and social work.[35] This approach can be very similar to many mainstreaming practices, and may differ in little more than the educational ideals behind it.[35]

In the "full inclusion" setting, the students with special needs are always educated alongside students without special needs, as the first and desired option while maintaining appropriate supports and services. Some educators say this might be more effective for the students with special needs.[36] At the extreme, full inclusion is the integration of all students, even those that require the most substantial educational and behavioral supports and services to be successful in regular classes and the elimination of special, segregated special education classes.[36] Special education is considered a service, not a place and those services are integrated into the daily routines (See, ecological inventories) and classroom structure, environment, curriculum and strategies and brought to the student, instead of removing the student to meet his or her individual needs. However, this approach to full inclusion is somewhat controversial, and it is not widely understood or applied to date.[36][37][38][39]

Much more commonly, local educational agencies have the responsibility to organize services for children with disabilities. They may provide a variety of settings, from special classrooms to mainstreaming to inclusion, and assign, as teachers and administrators often do, students to the system that seems most likely to help the student achieve his or her individual educational goals. Students with mild or moderate disabilities, as well as disabilities that do not affect academic achievement, such as using power wheelchair, scooter or other mobility device, are most likely to be fully included; indeed, children with polio or with leg injuries have grown to be leaders and teachers in government and universities; self advocates travel across the country and to different parts of the world. However, students with all types of disabilities from all the different disability categories (See, also 2012 book by Michael Wehmeyer from the University of Kansas) have been successfully included in general education classes, working and achieving their individual educational goals in regular school environments and activities (reference needed).

Alternatives to inclusion programs: School procedures and community development

Students with disabilities who are not included are typically either mainstreamed or segregated.

A mainstreamed student attends some general education classes, typically for less than half the day, and often for less academically rigorous, or if you will, more interesting and career-oriented classes. For example, a young student with significant intellectual disabilities might be mainstreamed for physical education classes, art classes and storybook time, but spend reading and mathematics classes with other students that have similar disabilities ("needs for the same level of academic instruction"). They may have access to a resource room for remediation or enhancement of course content, or for a variety of group and individual meetings and consultations.

A segregated student attends no classes with non-disabled students with disability a tested category determined before or at school entrance. He or she might attend a special school termed residential schools that only enrolls other students with disabilities, or might be placed in a dedicated, self-contained classroom in a school that also enrolls general education students. The latter model of integration, like the 1970s Jowonio School in Syracuse, is often highly valued when combined with teaching such as Montessori education techniques. Home schooling was also a popular alternative among highly educated parents with children with significant disabilities.

Residential schools have been criticized for decades, and the government has been asked repeatedly to keep funds and services in the local districts, including for family support services for parents who may be currently single and raising a child with significant challenges on their own.[40] Children with special needs may already be involved with early childhood education which can have a family support component emphasizing the strengths of the child and family.[41]

Some students may be confined to a hospital due to a medical condition (e.g., cancer treatments) and are thus eligible for tutoring services provided by a school district.[42] Less common alternatives include homeschooling[43][44] and, particularly in developing countries, exclusion from education.

Legal issues: Education law and disability laws

The new anti-discriminatory climate has provided the basis for much change in policy and statute, nationally and internationally. Inclusion has been enshrined at the same time that segregation and discrimination have been rejected. Articulations of the new developments in ways of thinking, in policy and in law include:

From the least restrictive to the most integrated setting

For schools in the United States, the federal requirement that students be educated in the historic least restrictive environment that is reasonable encourages the implementation of inclusion of students previously excluded by the school system.[48][49] However, a critical critique of the LRE principle, commonly used to guide US schools, indicates that it often places restrictions and segregation on the individuals with the most severe disabilities.[50] By the late 1980s, individuals with significant disabilities and their families and caregivers were already living quality lives in homes and local communities.[51][52][53] Luckily, the US Supreme Court has now ruled in the Olmstead Decision (1999) that the new principle is that of the "most integrated setting",[54] as described by the national Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, which should result in better achievement of national integration and inclusion goals in the 21st Century.

Inclusion rates in the World: "Frequency of Use"

The proportion of students with disabilities who are included varies by place and by type of disability, but it is relatively common for students with milder disabilities and less common with certain kinds of severe disabilities. In Denmark, 99% of students with learning disabilities like 'dyslexia' are placed in general education classrooms.[55] In the United States, three out of five students with learning disabilities spend the majority of their time in the general education classroom.[56]

Postsecondary statistics (after high school) are kept by universities and government on the success rates of students entering college, and most are eligible for either disability services (e.g., accommodations and aides) or programs on college campuses, such as supported education in psychiatric disabilities or College for Living. The former are fully integrated college degree programs with college and vocational rehabilitation services (e.g., payments for textbooks, readers or translators), and the latter courses developed similar to retirement institutes (e.g., banking for retirees).

Principles of inclusion and necessary resources

Although once hailed, usually by its opponents, as a way to increase achievement while decreasing costs, full inclusion does not save money, but is more cost-beneficial and cost-effective. It is not designed to reduce students' needs, and its first priority may not even be to improve academic outcomes; in most cases, it merely moves the special education professionals (now dual certified for all students in some states) out of "their own special education" classrooms and into a corner of the general classroom or as otherwise designed by the "teacher-in-charge" and "administrator-in-charge". To avoid harm to the academic education of students with disabilities, a full panoply of services and resources is required (of education for itself), including:[57]

Indeed, the students with special needs do receive funds from the federal government, by law originally the Educational for All Handicapped Children Act of 1974 to the present day, Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, which requires its use in the most integrated setting.

In principle, several factors can determine the success of inclusive classrooms:

By the mid-1980s, school integration leaders in the university sector already had detailed schemas (e.g., curriculum, student days, students with severe disabilities in classrooms) with later developments primarily in assistive technology and communication, school reform and transformation, personal assistance of user-directed aides, and increasing emphasis on social relationships and cooperative learning. In 2015, most important are evaluations of the populations still in special schools, including those who may be deaf-blind, and the leadership by inclusion educators, who often do not yet go by that name, in the education and community systems.

Differing views of inclusion and integration

However, early integrationists community integration would still recommend greater emphasis on programs related to sciences, the arts (e.g., exposure), curriculum integrated field trips, and literature as opposed to the sole emphasis on community referenced curriculum. For example, a global citizen studying the environment might be involved with planting a tree ("independent mobility"), or going to an arboretum ("social and relational skills"), developing a science project with a group ("contributing ideas and planning"), and having two core modules in the curriculum.

However, students will need to either continue to secondary school (meet academic testing standards), make arrangements for employment, supported education, or home/day services (transition services), and thus, develop the skills for future life (e.g., academic math skills and calculators; planning and using recipes or leisure skills) in the educational classrooms. Inclusion often involved individuals who otherwise might be at an institution or residential facility.

Today, longitudinal studies follow the outcomes of students with disabilities in classrooms, which include college graduations and quality of life outcomes. To be avoided are negative outcomes that include forms of institutionalization.

Common practices in inclusive classrooms

Students in an inclusive classroom are generally placed with their chronological age-mates, regardless of whether the students are working above or below the typical academic level for their age. Also, to encourage a sense of belonging, emphasis is placed on the value of friendships. Teachers often nurture a relationship between a student with special needs and a same-age student without a special educational need. Another common practice is the assignment of a buddy to accompany a student with special needs at all times (for example in the cafeteria, on the playground, on the bus and so on). This is used to show students that a diverse group of people make up a community, that no one type of student is better than another, and to remove any barriers to a friendship that may occur if a student is viewed as "helpless." Such practices reduce the chance for elitism among students in later grades and encourage cooperation among groups.[58]

Teachers use a number of techniques to help build classroom communities:


Inclusionary practices are commonly utilized by using the following team-teaching models:

In this model, the content teacher will deliver the lesson and the special education teacher will assist students individual needs and enforce classroom management as needed.

In this model, the teacher with the most experience in the content will deliver the lesson and the other teacher will float or observe. This model is commonly used for data retrieval during IEP observations or Functional Behavior Analysis.

In this model, the room is divided into stations in which the students will visit with their small groups. Generally, the content teacher will deliver the lesson in his/her group, and the special education teacher will complete a review or adapted version of the lesson with the students.

In this model, one half of the class is taught by the content teacher and one half is taught by the special education teacher. Both groups are being taught the same lesson, just in a smaller group.

In this method, the content teacher will teach the lesson to the class, while the special education teacher will teach a small group of students an alternative lesson.

Both teachers share the planning, teaching, and supporting equally. This is the traditional method, and often the most successful co-teaching model. [60]

Children with extensive support needs

For children with significant or severe disabilities, the programs may require what are termed health supports (e.g., positioning and lifting; visit to the nurse clinic), direct one-to-one aide in the classroom, assistive technology, and an individualized program which may involve the student "partially" (e.g., videos and cards for "visual stimulation"; listening to responses)in the full lesson plan for the "general education student". It may also require introduction of teaching techniques commonly used (e.g., introductions and interest in science) that teachers may not use within a common core class.

Another way to think of health supports are as a range of services that may be needed from specialists, or sometimes generalists, ranging from speech and language, to visual and hearing (sensory impairments), behavioral, learning, orthopedics, autism, deaf-blindness, and traumatic brain injury, according to Virginia Commonwealth University's Dr. Paul Wehman.[61] As Dr. Wehman has indicated, expectations can include post secondary education, supported employment in competitive sites, and living with family or other residential places in the community.

In 2005, comprehensive health supports were described in National Goals for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities as universally available, affordable and promoting inclusion, as supporting well-informed, freely chose health care decisions, culturally competent, promoting health promotion, and insuring well trained and respectful health care providers.[62] In addition, mental health, behavioral, communication and crisis needs may need to be planned for and addressed.

“Full inclusion” — the idea that all children, including those with severe disabilities, can and should learn in a regular classroom has also taken root in many school systems, and most notably in the province of New Brunswick.

Collaboration among the professions

Inclusion settings allow children with and without disabilities to play and interact every day, even when they are receiving therapeutic services. When a child displays fine motor difficulty, his ability to fully participate in common classroom activities, such as cutting, coloring, and zipping a jacket may be hindered. While occupational therapists are often called to assess and implement strategies outside of school, it is frequently left up to classroom teachers to implement strategies in school. Collaborating with occupational therapists will help classroom teachers use intervention strategies and increase teacher’s awareness about student’s needs within school settings and enhance teacher’s independence in implementation of occupational therapy strategies.

As a result of the 1997 re-authorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), greater emphasis has been placed on delivery of related services within inclusive, general education environments. [Nolan, 2004] The importance of inclusive, integrated models of service delivery for children with disabilities has been widely researched indicating positive benefits. [Case-Smith& Holland, 2009] In traditional "pull out" service delivery models, children typically work in isolated settings one on one with a therapist, Case-Smith and Holland(2009) argue that children working on skills once or twice a week are "less likely to produce learning that leads to new behaviors and increased competence." [Case Smith &Holland, 2009, pg.419]. In recent years, occupational therapy has shifted from the conventional model of "pull out" therapy to an integrated model where the therapy takes place within a school or classroom.

Inclusion administrators have been requested to review their personnel to assure mental health personnel for children with mental health needs, vocational rehabilitation linkages for work placements, community linkages for special populations (e.g., "deaf-blind", "autism"), and collaboration among major community agencies for after school programs and transition to adulthood.[63][64] Highly recommended are collaborations with parents, including parent-professional partnerships in areas of cultural and linguistic diversity (e.g., Syracuse University's special education Ph.D.'s Maya Kaylanpur and Beth Harry).

Selection of students for inclusion programs in schools

Educators generally say that some students with special needs are not good candidates for inclusion.[65] Many schools expect a fully included student to be working at or near grade level, but more fundamental requirements exist: First, being included requires that the student is able to attend school. Students that are entirely excluded from school (for example, due to long-term hospitalization), or who are educated outside of schools (for example, due to enrollment in a distance education program) cannot attempt inclusion.

Additionally, some students with special needs are poor candidates for inclusion because of their effect on other students. For example, students with severe behavioral problems, such that they represent a serious physical danger to others, are poor candidates for inclusion, because the school has a duty to provide a safe environment to all students and staff.

Finally, some students are not good candidates for inclusion because the normal activities in a general education classroom will prevent them from learning.[35] For example, a student with severe attention difficulties or extreme sensory processing disorders might be highly distracted or distressed by the presence of other students working at their desks. Inclusion needs to be appropriate to the child's unique needs.

Most students with special needs do not fall into these extreme categories, as most students do attend school, are not violent, do not have severe sensory processing disorders, etc.

The students that are most commonly included are those with physical disabilities that have no or little effect on their academic work (diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, food allergies, paralysis), students with all types of mild disabilities, and students whose disabilities require relatively few specialized services.

Bowe says that regular inclusion, but not full inclusion, is a reasonable approach for a significant majority of students with special needs.[35] He also says that for some students, notably those with severe autism spectrum disorders or mental retardation, as well as many who are deaf or have multiple disabilities, even regular inclusion may not offer an appropriate education.[35] Teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders sometimes use antecedent procedures, delayed contingencies, self-management strategies, peer-mediated interventions, pivotal response training and naturalistic teaching strategies.[66]

Relationship to progressive education

Some advocates of inclusion promote the adoption of progressive education practices. In the progressive education or inclusive classroom, everyone is exposed to a "rich set of activities," and each student does what he or she can do, or what he or she wishes to do and learns whatever comes from that experience. Maria Montessori's schools are sometimes named as an example of inclusive education.

Inclusion requires some changes in how teachers teach, as well as changes in how students with and without special needs interact with and relate to one another. Inclusive education practices frequently rely on active learning, authentic assessment practices, applied curriculum, multi-level instructional approaches, and increased attention to diverse student needs and individualization.

Arguments for full inclusion in regular neighborhood schools

Advocates say that even partial non-inclusion is morally unacceptable.[67] Proponents believe that non-inclusion reduces the disabled students' social importance and that maintaining their social visibility is more important than their academic achievement. Proponents say that society accords disabled people less human dignity when they are less visible in general education classrooms. Advocates say that even if typical students are harmed academically by the full inclusion of certain special needs students, that the non-inclusion of these students would still be morally unacceptable, as advocates believe that the harm to typical students' education is always less important than the social harm caused by making people with disabilities less visible in society.[67]

A second key argument is that everybody benefits from inclusion. Advocates say that there are many children and young people who don't fit in (or feel as though they don't), and that a school that fully includes all disabled students feels welcoming to all. Moreover, at least one author has studied the impact a diversified student body has on the general education population and has concluded that students with mental retardation who spend time among their peers show an increase in social skills and academic proficiency.[68]

Advocates for inclusion say that the long-term effects of typical students who are included with special needs students at a very young age have a heightened sensitivity to the challenges that others face, increased empathy and compassion, and improved leadership skills, which benefits all of society.[69]

A combination of inclusion and pull-out (partial inclusion) services has been shown to be beneficial to students with learning disabilities in the area of reading comprehension, and preferential for the special education teachers delivering the services.[70]

Inclusive education can be beneficial to all students in a class, not just students with special needs. Some research show that inclusion helps students understand the importance of working together, and fosters a sense of tolerance and empathy among the student body.[71]

Positive effects of inclusion in regular classrooms

There are many positive effects of inclusions where both the students with special needs along with the other students in the classroom both benefit. Research has shown positive effects for children with disabilities in areas such as reaching individualized education program (IEP) goal, improving communication and social skills, increasing positive peer interactions, many educational outcomes, and post school adjustments. Positive effects on children without disabilities include the development of positive attitudes and perceptions of persons with disabilities and the enhancement of social status with non-disabled peers.[72]
Several studies have been done on the effects of inclusion of children with disabilities in general education classrooms. A study on inclusion compared integrated and segregated (special education only) preschool students. The study determined that children in the integrated sites progressed in social skills development while the segregated children actually regressed.[73]
Another study shows the effect on inclusion in grades 2 to 5. The study determined that students with specific learning disabilities made some academic and affective gains at a pace comparable to that of normal achieving students. Specific learning disabilities students also showed an improvement in self-esteem and in some cases improved motivation.[74]

A third study shows how the support of peers in an inclusive classroom can lead to positive effects for children with autism. The study observed typical inclusion classrooms, ages ranging from 7 years old to 11 years old. The peers were trained on an intervention technique to help their fellow autistic classmates stay on task and focused. The study showed that using peers to intervene instead of classroom teachers helped students with autism reduce off-task behaviors significantly. It also showed that the typical students accepted the student with autism both before and after the intervention techniques were introduced.[75]

Criticisms of inclusion programs of school districts

Critics of full and partial inclusion include educators, administrators and parents. Full and partial inclusion approaches neglect to acknowledge the fact most students with significant special needs require individualized instruction or highly controlled environments. Thus, general education classroom teachers often are teaching a curriculum while the special education teacher is remediating instruction at the same time. Similarly, a child with serious inattention problems may be unable to focus in a classroom that contains twenty or more active children. Although with the increase of incidence of disabilities in the student population, this is a circumstance all teachers must contend with, and is not a direct result of inclusion as a concept.[76]

Full inclusion may be a way for schools to placate parents and the general public, using the word as a phrase to garner attention for what are in fact illusive efforts to educate students with special needs in the general education environment.[77]

At least one study examined the lack of individualized services provided for students with IEPs when placed in an inclusive rather than mainstreamed environment.[78]

Some researchers have maintained school districts neglect to prepare general education staff for students with special needs, thus preventing any achievement. Moreover, school districts often expound an inclusive philosophy for political reasons, and do away with any valuable pull-out services, all on behalf of the students who have no so say in the matter.[79]

Inclusion is viewed by some as a practice philosophically attractive yet impractical. Studies have not corroborated the proposed advantages of full or partial inclusion. Moreover, "push in" servicing does not allow students with moderate to severe disabilities individualized instruction in a resource room, from which many show considerable benefit in both learning and emotional development.[80]

Parents of disabled students may be cautious about placing their children in an inclusion program because of fears that the children will be ridiculed by other students, or be unable to develop regular life skills in an academic classroom.[81]

Some argue that inclusive schools are not a cost-effective response when compared to cheaper or more effective interventions, such as special education. They argue that special education helps "fix" the special needs students by providing individualized and personalized instruction to meet their unique needs. This is to help students with special needs adjust as quickly as possible to the mainstream of the school and community. Proponents counter that students with special needs are not fully into the mainstream of student life because they are secluded to special education. Some argue that isolating students with special needs may lower their self-esteem and may reduce their ability to deal with other people. In keeping these students in separate classrooms they aren't going to see the struggles and achievements that they can make together. However, at least one study indicated mainstreaming in education has long-term benefits for students as indicated by increased test scores,[82] where the benefit of inclusion has not yet been proved.

Broader approach: Social and cultural inclusion

As used by UNESCO,[83] inclusion refers to far more than students with special educational needs. It is centered on the inclusion of marginalized groups, such as religious, racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities, immigrants, girls, the poor, students with disabilities, HIV/AIDS patients, remote populations, and more. In some places, these people are not actively included in education and learning processes.[84] In the U.S. this broader definition is also known as "culturally responsive" education, which differs from the 1980s-1990s cultural diversity and cultural competency approaches,[85][86] and is promoted among the ten equity assistance centers[87] of the U.S. Department of Education, for example in Region IX (AZ, CA, NV), by the Equity Alliance at ASU.[88] Gloria Ladson-Billings[89] points out that teachers who are culturally responsive know how to base learning experiences on the cultural realities of the child (e.g. home life, community experiences, language background, belief systems). Proponents argue that culturally responsive pedagogy is good for all students because it builds a caring community where everyone's experiences and abilities are valued.

Proponents want to maximize the participation of all learners in the community schools of their choice and to rethink and restructure policies, curricula, cultures and practices in schools and learning environments so that diverse learning needs can be met, whatever the origin or nature of those needs.[90] They say that all students can learn and benefit from education, and that schools should adapt to the physical, social, and cultural needs of students, rather than students adapting to the needs of the school. Proponents believe that individual differences between students are a source of richness and diversity, which should be supported through a wide and flexible range of responses. The challenge of rethinking and restructuring schools to become more culturally responsive calls for a complex systems view of the educational system (e.g.see Michael Patton[91]), where one can extend the idea of strength through diversity to all participants in the educational system (e.g. parents, teachers, community members, staff).

Although inclusion is generally associated with elementary and secondary education, it is also applicable in postsecondary education. According to UNESCO, inclusion "is increasingly understood more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners."[84] Under this broader definition of inclusion, steps should also be taken to eliminate discrimination and provide accommodations for all students who are at a disadvantage because of some reason other than disability.

Benefiting in an Inclusive environment

“The inclusion of age-appropriate students in a general education classroom, alongside those with and without disability is beneficial to both parties involved. (Waitoller and Thorius) With inclusive education, all students are exposed to the same curriculum, they develop their own individual potential, and participate in the same activities at the same time. Therefore, there is a variety of ways in which learning takes place because students learn differently, at their own pace and by their own style. (Carter, Moss, Asmus, Fesperman, Cooney, Brock, Lyons, Huber, and Vincent) Effectively, inclusive education provides a nurturing venue where teaching and learning should occur despite pros and cons. It is evident that students with disabilities benefit more in an inclusive atmosphere because they can receive help from their peers with diverse abilities and they compete at the same level due to equal opportunities given.”

Works cited

Carter, Eric W., Moss, Colleen K., Asmus, Jennifer., Fesperman, Ethan., Cooney Molly, Brock Matthew E., Lyons B Greygory, Huber Heartley., and Lori, B.Vincent "Promoting Inclusion, Social Connections, And Learning Through Peer Support Arrangements. "Teaching Exceptional Children 48.1 (2015): 9-18. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.

Accessed at:

Waitoller, Federico R., and Thorius Kathleen King., "Playing Hopscotch In Inclusive Education Reform: Examining Promises And Limitations Of Policy And Practice In The US." Support For Learning 30.1 (2015): 23-41. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2016 Accessed at:

See also


  1. Allen, K.E., Schwartz, I
  2. Scheyer et al. (1996). The Inclusive Classroom Teacher Created Materials, Inc. The Inclusive Classroom
  3. "What is Inclusive Design". Inclusive Design Research Centre. OCAD University. Retrieved 13 November 2015.
  4. Wilkinson, Richard; Pickett, Kate (2010). The Spirit Level- Why Equity is Better for Everyone (2010 ed.). England: Penguin Books. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-241-95429-4.
  5. Taylor, S.J. & Ferguson, D. (1985). A summary of strategies utilized in model programs and resource materials. In: S. Stainback & W. Stainback, Integration of Students with Severe Handicaps in Regular Schools. Washington, DC: The Council for Exceptional Children.
  6. Schnorr, R. (1990). Peter? He comes and goes...First graders' perspectives on a part-time mainstream student. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15(4): 231-240.
  7. Forest, M. (1986, winter). Education Integration/Integracion Scolaire. Entourage, 1(1): 19-23.
  8. Sapon-Shevin, M., Ayres, B., & Duncan, J. (1994). Cooperative learning and inclusion. In: J. S. Thousand, R.A. Villa, & A.I. Nevins, Creativity and Collaborative Learning: A Practical Guide to Empowering Students and Teachers. (pp. 45-58). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  9. Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for Effective Mainsreaming. NY, NY: Teachers College Press.
  10. Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M., & Hollowood, T. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive elementary school. JASH, 18(2): 75-84.
  11. Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Anderson, J. (1986, Summer). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(2): 125-130.
  12. Snell, M. & Browder, D.M. (1986, Spring). Community-referenced instruction: Research and issues. JASH, 11(1): 1-11.
  13. Wolfe, P.S. (1994, Spring). Judgment of the social validity of instructional strategies used in community-based instructional sites. JASH, 19(1): 43-51.
  14. Racino, J. (1999). Table 6.3: Curriculum for students with severe handicaps. Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support. (p. 134). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
  15. Ford, A. & Davern, L. (1989). Moving forward on school integration: Strategies for involving studennt with severe disabilities in the life of the school. In: R. Gaylord-Ross, Integration Strategies for Persons with Handicaps. (pp. 11-31). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  16. Brown, L., Schwarz, P., Udvari-Solner, A., Kampchroer, E., Johnson, F., Jorgensen, J., & Gruenewald, L. (1991, Spring). How much time should students with severe intellectual disabilities spend in regular education classrooms and elsewhere? JASH, 16(1): 39-47.
  17. "Students learn the importance of individual and group contributions and develop valuable life skills that are often unexplored in less inclusive settings" (Tapasak 216). Tapasak, Renee and Christine Walther-Thomas. "Evaluation of a First-Year Inclusion Program:Student Perceptions and Classroom Performance." Remedial and Special Education 20(1999): 216-225. Print.
  18. Davis, W. (1989). The regular education initiative debate: Its promises and pitfalls. Exceptional Children, 55(5): 440-446.
  19. Kauffman, J. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle down theory of the education of the hard-to-teach. The Journal of Special Education, 23(3): 256- 278.
  20. Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51: 102-11.
  21. Knoll, J. & Meyer, L. (1986). Principles and practices for school integration of students with severe disabilities: An overview of the literature. In: M. Berres & P. Knoblock, Managerial Models of Mainstreaming. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
  22. Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Schwarz, P., VenDeventer, P., et al. (1989, Spring). Should students with severe intellectual disabilities be based in regular or in special education classrooms in home schools? Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(1): 8-12.
  23. Scheyer et al. (1996). The Inclusive Classroom Teacher Created Materials, Inc. The Inclusive Classroom
  24. Sailor, W. (1991, November/December). Special education in the restructured school. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6): 8-22.
  25. Sage, D.D. (1996). Administrative strategies for achieving inclusive schooling. (pp. 105-116). In: S. Stainback & W. Stainback, Inclusion: A Guide for Educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  26. Powell, D. & Hyle, A. (12997, May). Principals and school reform: Barriers to inclusion in three secondary schools. Journal of School Leadership, Volume 7: 301-326
  27. Bellamy, T.G. (1989). Book Review of D. K. Liptsky and A. Gartner, School Reform for All Students: An Essay Review of Beyond Separate Education: Quality Education for All. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  28. Racino, J., (1999). Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support. (p. 219). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
  29. Stainback, W. & Stainback, W. C. (1989). Classroom organization for diversity among students. In: D. Biklen, D. Ferguson & Al Ford, Schooling and Disability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  30. Jorgensen, C. & Tashie, C. (2000). Turning points: The story of high school inclusion in New Hampshire. (pp. 131-176). In: J. Nisbet & D. Hagner, Part of the Community. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  31. Fried, R.L. & Jorgensen, C.M (1998). Equity and excellence: Finding common ground between inclusive education and school reform. In: C. M. Jorgensen, Restructuring High School For All Students. (pp. 15–28). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  32. Forest, M. & Pearpoint, J.. (1992). MAPS: Action planning. (pp. 52–56). In: J. Pearpoint, M. Forest, & J. Snow, The Inclusion Papers: Strategies to Make Inclusion Work. Toronto, Canada: The Inclusion Press.
  33. O'Brien, J. & Lyle O'Brien, C. (1996). Inclusion as a force for school renewal. In : S. Stainback & W. Stainback, Inclusion: A Guide for Educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  34. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 1, 2009. Retrieved November 1, 2009. Definition of inclusion, accessed October 11, 2007. Archived 2009-10-31.
  35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bowe, Frank. (2005). Making Inclusion Work. Merrill Education/Prentice Hall.
  36. 1 2 3 "Understanding Psychology Eighth Edition", Feldman, Robert S. (2008), page 309. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
  37. Student teachers' attitudes toward the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology, Hastings. R.P., & Oakford, S. (2003), page 23, 87-95
  38. Mainstreaming to full inclusion: From orthogenesis to pathogenesis of an idea. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, Kavale, K.A. (2002), page 49, 201-214.
  39. Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, Praisner, C. L. (2003), page 69, 135-145.
  40. Racino, J. (1999). Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
  41. Dunst, C.J. & Trivette, C.M. (2012). Capacity-building family-system intervention practices. (pp. 33–57). In: G.H. S. Singer, Biegel, D.E. & Conway, P., Family Support and Family Caregiving across Disabilities. London & NY, NY: Routledge.
  42. Jorgensen, C., Schuh, M., & Nisbet, J. (2005). The inclusion facilitator's guide. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
  43. Homeschooling in the United States: 2003
  44. Trentin G. & Benigno V. (Eds) (2013). Network Technology and Homebound Inclusive Education. Nova Science Publishers Inc., Hauppauge, NY, ISBN 978-1-62808-537-2.
  45. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on September 21, 2009. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
  46. Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs. (PDF-File, 198 KB)
  47. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 24 – Education.
  48. Karp, N. & Taylor, S.J. (1988). The Least Restrictive Environment and Community Integration: A Leadership Institute. Washington, DC and Syracuse, NY: National Institute on Disability Research and Rehabilitation and Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy.
  49. McLaughlin, M., Blacher, J., Duffy, S., Hardman, M., McDonnell, J., Nisbet, J., Safer, N., & Snell, M. (2005). Effective education in the least restrictive environment. In: K.C. Lakin & A. Turnbull, National Goals and Research for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Washington, DC: The Arc of the US and the American Association on Mental Retardation.
  50. Taylor, S.J. (1988, Spring). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principles of the least restrictive environment. JASH, 13(1): 41-53.
  51. Taylor, S.J., Racino, J., Knoll, J., & Lutfiyya, Z.M. (1987). The Least Restrictive Environment: On Community Integration of Persons with the Most Severe Disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
  52. Scheerenberger, R. (1988, June). Review of the nonrestrictive environment: On community integration of persons with the most severe disabilties. Mental Retardation, 167-169.
  53. Taylor, S.J., Biklen, D. & Knoll, J. (1987). Community Integration for Persons with Severe Disabilities. NY, NY: Teachers College Press.
  54. Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. (2012). Olmstead Implementation and the Concept of the Most Integrated Setting. Washington, DC: Author.
  55. Robert Holland (06/01/2002). "Vouchers Help the Learning Disabled: Lesson from 22 countries: Special-education students thrive in private schools". School Reform News. The Heartland Institute. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  56. Cortiella, C. (2009). The State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
  57. This list from the Utah Education Association.
  58. Strully, J., & Strully, C. (1996). Friendships as an educational goal: What we have learned and where we are headed. In W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
  59. "How to Support Special Needs Students". Retrieved 4 March 2015.
  60. Zelkowitz, Alyssa. "Strategies for Special Education and Inclusion Classrooms". Scholastic. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  61. Wehman, P. (1997). Exceptional Individuals in School, Community and Work. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  62. Coulter, D., Bacon, A., Birenbaum, A., Campbell, V., Cerreto, M., Corbin, S., Crocker, A., Krahn, G., McClain, C., McDermott, Nehring, W., Pietrangelo, R., Rader, R., Spitalnik, D. & White-Scott, S.(2005). Comprehensive health support and health promotion. (pp.109-124). In: K. C. Lakin & A. Turnbull, National Goals and Research for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Washington, DC: The Arc of the US and American Association on Mental Retardation.
  63. Rusch, F.R., Destefano, L., Chadsey-Rusch, J., Phelps, L.A., & Szymanski, E. (1992). Transition from School to Adult Life: Models, Linkages and Policy. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
  64. Schall, C. & McFarland-Whisman, J. (2009). Meeting transition goals through inclusion. (pp.95-110). In: P. Wehman, Datlow-Smith, M. & Schall, C., Autism and the Transition to Adulthood: Success Beyond the Classroom. Sydney, Australia: Paul H. Brookes.
  65. Carroll, Doug. "Transformation Ahead for Special Education" The Arizona Republic. 21 September 2006
  66. Sonja R. de Boer (2009). Successful inclusion for students with autism: creating a complete, effective ASD inclusion program. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 38–42. ISBN 0-470-23080-0.
  67. 1 2 Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1995). Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education. Allyn & Bacon.
  68. Trainer, M. (1991). Differences in common: Straight talk on mental retardation, Down Syndrome, and life. Rockville, MD" Woodbine house.
  69. Giangreco, M.F., Cloninger, C.J., & Iverson, V.S.(1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for Children (COACH): A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co
  70. Marston, Douglas. The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, 121–132 (1996)
  71. Gillies, R.M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction there are inclusion units and other rooms in some schools which focus on these aspects, 14(2), 197–213.
  72. Bennett, T., Deluca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64.
  73. Sale, P., & Carey, D. (1995). The Sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62.
  74. Banerji, M., & Dailey, R. (1995). A Study of the effects of an inclusion model on students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8), 511-522.
  75. McCurdy, E. E.; Cole, C. L. (2014). "Use of a peer support intervention for promoting academic engagement of students with autism in general education settings". Journal of autism and developmental disorders. 44 (4): 883–893. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1941-5. PMID 24146130.
  76. Barkley, R.A. (1998). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorders: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
  77. JM Kauffman, DP Hallahan.The Illusion of Full Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of a Current Special Education Bandwagon. PRO-ED, Inc., 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897
  78. Espin, C.A.Individualized Education Programs in Resource and Inclusive Settings.The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, 164–174 (1998)
  79. Lieberman, Laurence M. Preserving Special Education. Weston: Nobb Hill Press Inc, 1988.
  80. An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Resource Rooms for Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Lawrence H. Weiner Journal of Learning Disabilities, Apr 1969; vol. 2: pp. 223 - 229.
  81. This information provided by SEDL.
  82. van den Bos, K.P., Nakken, H., Nicolay, P.G.,& van Houten, E.J. (2007). Adults with mild intellectual disabilities: Can their reading comprehension ability be improved? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(11), 830–845.
  83. UNESCO
  84. 1 2 UNESCO (2009) Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education. UNESCO: Paris.
  85. Harry, B. (1992). Cultural Diversity, Families and the Special Education System. NY, NY: Teachers College Press.
  86. Cross, T.B., Bazron, B. & Dennis, K. W. (1989). Towards Culturally Competent System of Care. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center.
  87. ten equity assistance centers
  88. Equity Alliance at ASU
  89. Ladson-Billings, B. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31(4), 312-320.
  90. British Psychological Society position statement on inclusive education
  91. Patton, M. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY, The Guilford Press.


Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/18/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.