Inclusive Education

This article focuses on inclusive education practices. It provides an introduction to the available information on the history, philosophy, basic principles and methods, and approaches employed in inclusive education in US public schools. A working definition of inclusive education based on a literature review is included. In order to successfully implement inclusive education, students, families, teachers, and administrators need diversity training, access to inclusive education strategies or activities, and support systems. Perspectives for and against the methods and approaches discussed are presented.

Special Education > Inclusive Education

Overview

Inclusive education is a philosophy that allows for a range of strategies and methods. Direct, classroom-based, community-based, and consultative programming are a few of the available educational options. The goal of inclusive practices is to plan and devise an intervention option that is unique in meeting the disabled individual's educational needs. Factors such as the individual's type of disability, age, academic performance, family concerns, and social skills assist personnel in determining the types of support and modifications necessary for the individual to be successful in the school and community environment. The shift to inclusive education has been general and remains a hot topic of debate among educators and researchers. To understand the model of inclusive education, one needs to be familiar with the historical progression of inclusion.

History

In the 1950s and 1960s, most children with special needs attended segregated educational programs. In the history of inclusive education, parent groups, the civil rights movement, and educational reform movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s are often collectively associated. Together, social and political groups influenced the design of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This legislation ensured all children, regardless of ability, the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The law was reauthorized by Congress multiple times, including in 1990, when the law's name was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and in 2004.

Hallahan and Kauffman state that approximately four decades ago, professionals and families began to question the practice and lack of research to support the provision of instruction primarily in self-contained or segregated classrooms. This practice did not allow interaction and socialization with non-disabled peers. As a result, a resource room was implemented to allow the individual with a disability to spend part of the day with special educators and the other part of the day in the regular classroom engaged in classroom activities. In the 1980s, advocates proposed that all instruction for individuals with disabilities should be in the general classroom. Professionals and families often cite FAPE as the legal requirement that allows inclusive education.

Families and professionals often misinterpret FAPE as implying that inclusive education is mandated by public law. FAPE prescribes that individuals with disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). LRE states that an individual's first placement option should be in the regular classroom in the school the individual would attend if no disability existed. LRE should be determined on an individual basis. The term inclusive education is not defined by public law and can have many meanings contingent upon a group or individual's point of view. Thus, inclusive education is a philosophy of educating and providing support services to students with disabilities in regular education classrooms, extracurricular activities, and communities.

Philosophy

Inclusive education philosophically proposes to include individuals with disabilities. Proponents of inclusive education suggest that research indicates that children with disabilities perform better when included in general education activities with non-disabled peers. Schools employing inclusive practices report an increase in educational outcomes when all children are viewed as capable of learning. This lends to a belief that public schools can simultaneously expand education for all students by improving educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Nonetheless, a key principle of inclusive education should be that the education of individuals with disabilities should not be synonymous with a place but a practice of providing individualized instruction.

Defining Inclusive Education

A specific definition of inclusive practice does not currently exist. The available definitions in the literature are dependent on the theoretical perspective of the group using the term.

Sebba and Ainscow proposed a functional definition for inclusive education to include the philosophy that students who share a community should be educated together. According to Feiler and Gibson, a definition of inclusion should view it as a dynamic versus static state. Systems should be used that support flexible classrooms in terms of teaching methods and learner groupings, and advance a relationship between inclusion and exclusion. For the purposes of this paper, inclusive education simply means allowing individuals, with or without disabilities, to learn in any environment with the proper support systems.

Overview of Basic Principles & Practices of Inclusive Education

From an economic standpoint, inclusive education is proposed as an avenue to control the cost for special education programs by decreasing the need for redundant services and staff. Controlling costs allows schools to increase accountability to taxpayers for the special education services provided to individuals. Proponents argue individuals with special needs can increase their quality of life, self-esteem, and interactions with normal peer groups when permitted to participate in inclusive educational schools. Additionally, peer groups can benefit by learning how to interact with individuals who are diverse.

Proponents of inclusion, advocate for the principles and practices of:

• "Educating all children with disabilities in regular classrooms in the neighborhood school.
• Providing age-appropriate academic classes and extracurricular activities.
• Providing essential services in the regular classroom without 'pulling out' students" (Price, Mayfield, McFadden, & Marsh, 2000).

Applications

Inclusion should be viewed as an ever-changing process that assists all stakeholders in the provision and identification of appropriate educational services to diverse students. Adopting inclusive education as a philosophy does not guarantee good outcomes. In order to successfully implement inclusive education, students, families, teachers, and administrators need diversity training, access to inclusive education strategies or activities, and support systems.

Diversity training

Diversity training refers to understanding the customs, beliefs, values, social systems, and languages or communication styles of specific groups of people. Bricker found that teachers, parents and children's attitudes can influence the success of inclusive education. It is imperative that all teachers are trained in managing the diverse needs of the students taught within the classroom. However, diversity training should also include recognizing "one's limitations of training and expertise" (Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995). By recognizing the need for appropriate training, the individual can engage in learning and implementing appropriate classroom strategies. In terms of disabilities, diversity training may include recognizing strengths within the individual, the use of alternative or augmentative communication strategies/devices, developing friendships, or allowing the individual to make life choices (i.e., types of instruction, career).

Methods & Approaches

Inclusive strategies should supplement what is being taught in the classroom. In order to understand these strategies, a person must understand that the names of the strategies are dynamic. For instance, terms such as collaboration, push-in, pull aside, curriculum-based instruction, multiskilling, pull-out, consultative, and team teaching are a few that have been used in the literature. The correct term to use is not as important as understanding the need to be flexible and that the strategy of choice should be the one that provides the most benefit to the child along the continuum of learning. For the purposes of this paper, the instructional strategies that will be discussed include the following: consultation models, collaboration, team teaching, and learning centers.

Consultation

Consultation models are sometimes referred to as indirect models. The use of this instructional strategy allows the regular education teacher to consult with special educators or related service providers (i.e., speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists) in adjusting the learning environment or modifying instructional methods to meet the individualized needs of the student with disabilities. Ehren suggested the goal of this strategy is to use the activity of the teacher and make specific suggestions on how to alter or adapt the activity to meet the needs of the individual. As with inclusive education, the definition of consultation can have many different meanings. Consultation can be defined as simply providing information to the teacher as the expert or collaborating with the teacher.

Effective consultation models include:

• Understanding that any ideas can be accepted, rejected, or adjusted;
• Actively listening to all ideas and viewpoints;
• Using intra and interpersonal communication skills;
• Implementing the agreed upon course of action;
• Scheduling and attending regular meetings to review progress and make modifications; and,
• Clarifying and evaluating the objectives of the consultation and resources available.

The advantages of consultation models include cost effectiveness, enhanced generalization of short- and long-term objectives, and increased awareness of diverse learning styles. Disadvantages include an increased need for planning time, scheduling, educating parents and administrators on the effectiveness of the approach, and addressing difficult behaviors in larger groups.

Collaboration

Collaboration refers to a process where regular and special education teachers as well as families develop plans and solutions in a supportive manner by sharing responsibilities and using the strengths and skills of each participant. In many cases, collaboration is reliant on consultation and sometimes referred to as collaborative consultation. For collaboration to be successful, individuals must understand how to resolve conflict, develop relationships that strive to increase the success of the student, develop, plan, implement and evaluate student progress, and be allowed the planning time necessary for successful implementation.

Team Teaching

Team teaching is often used as a synonym for collaboration. It can also mean, however, that two teachers independently develop activities along curriculum lines. For instance, one teacher will teach math and the other will teach social studies. Magiera, Lawrence-Brown, Bloomquist, et al (2006) stated four elements for effective co-teaching: strong communication, flexibility, respect, and organization between the teachers.

Barriers in using team teaching include scheduling joint planning times for both teachers. It is imperative that teachers and administrators be creative and flexible in scheduling planning times. Friend offered suggestions such as arranging for substitute teachers, offering stipends for after-school work, or scheduling monthly planning times to increase the effectiveness of team teaching.

Barriers are not limited to planning time for teachers but include scheduling students into team teaching classrooms. Teachers and administrators should be aware of the student to teacher ratio in terms of special needs. Friend further recommended that elementary students with special needs should not represent more than one-fourth of the class, and middle and high school students should not represent more than one-third of the class.

In addition, teacher scheduling can be a concern. Elementary schools should assign special educators to a limited number of grade levels. Teams should be developed at the middle school level to teach in the core subject areas of math, English, science, and social studies. However, each team should teach in only one core subject area.

Measuring outcomes are another vital component of team teaching. However, outcomes should not be limited to high-stakes or standardized testing. Factors such as a decrease in discipline referral rates, attendance, or curriculum-based mastery should be considered.

Learning Centers

King-Sears (2007) defined learning centers as "an organizational method that can be used to provide students with small group instruction, practice and review activities, and increased active engagement in learning." King-Sears outlined four types of students are found in classrooms: students exceeding or mastering the classroom objectives and are ready to increase their skill levels; students adequately meeting the basic classroom objectives; students approaching basic levels and need redundancy or practice with provided instruction; and, students below the basic skill levels and needing more practice with classroom objectives. The same types of students can be found and challenged with appropriate individualized instruction in inclusive education. As a teaching method, learning centers can provide an alternative to the diverse learning styles within any type of classroom.

Learning centers allow active engagement in learning, opportunities to practice and develop new skills, and the generalization of skills into other types of tasks or situations (King-Sears, 2007). Well-designed learning centers are labor intensive and require time and planning to implement. King-Sears stated the effectiveness of learning centers is dependent upon the teacher understanding how to individualize the activities for independent learning, organizing and preparing activities, and possessing the knowledge of student learning styles, having good classroom management, and clearly defining the rules and procedures for the learning centers.

Support Systems

Educational

The final factor in making inclusive education successful is the adequate and proper use of support systems. Research identifies successful support systems as practices that "naturally" fit into the classroom environment, such as peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and class-wide peer tutoring. Peer tutoring involves an "expert" student assisting a "novice" student in activities such as reading or repeating directions, reviewing spelling or vocabulary words, or helping gather materials for class. Mastropeiri, Scruggs, and Berkely characterized cooperative learning as working in small groups on teacher defined objectives. Class-wide peer tutoring involves being paired with different age groups for short time segments during the week to accomplish tasks such as writing or retelling stories.

Educational support systems must be developed from a top-down and bottom-up perspective. Administrators (top-down) must allow teachers to take risks and teachers (bottom-up) must be allowed input into how things will change. Support systems can also include ongoing training in research-based teaching methods, visits to schools using inclusive education, and providing mentors to develop the necessary knowledge and skills in learning about the challenges of providing inclusive education. Support should be construed broadly from necessary physical accommodations and additional training for staff to administrative personnel who see the added value of inclusion.

Family

Having an adequate educational support system seems essential to successful inclusion; however, having parental involvement is critical. Families and children with and without special needs should be involved in designing effective inclusive education. The rationale for including both types of families is that parents are the ultimate decision makers in regard to educational and social policies.

Involvement in educational programs allows parents to influence policy by providing feedback on the development of inclusive practices at the school, district, and state level. As indicated in the research literature, parental involvement in education is a significant factor in any child's educational success.

Viewpoints

Opponents of inclusive education propose that individuals with special needs affect the progress of the normal peer group. Boredom, an increase in behavioral issues, and a decrease in the curriculum pace are a few of the issues from opponents to inclusive education. Additionally, opponents question the economic impact of inclusive education in comparison to self-contained or resource classrooms. Specific disability groups, such as the visually impaired or deaf, express concerns that an inclusion-only placement option may not be in the best interest of the individual as this may be detrimental to the learning process. In other words, while placement in inclusive education environments may offer the least restrictive environment, if it is the only placement option, individualization is not possible.

Research on Effectiveness of Inclusive Education

The research presented is a sampling of the wide variety of literature available on inclusive education. Currently, however, the literature is inconclusive regarding what is considered best practices. Opponents charge that the research is a vignette of "feel good" subjective stories and not scientific or empirical research. Studies do not clearly define the characteristics of inclusion programs, differ in the types of inclusive services evaluated, disabilities served, and the skills targeted, which make replication or generalization of findings difficult. Additionally, opponents point out that a lack of a singular definition of inclusion increases the likelihood that people have different concepts of inclusion, making it difficult to make accurate comparisons across programs. In education's socio-political environment, it is imperative that evidence-based research be conducted for accountability purposes.

Proponents feel that it is difficult to arrange studies due to the various disabilities, the uniqueness of each disability, and individuality of each subject. It is also acknowledged by advocates that pure and contaminated research occurs in any field, and policymakers and educators should distinguish between good and bad research.

Conclusions

This article focuses on inclusive education practices and provides an introduction to the available information on the history, philosophy, basic principles, and methods and approaches employed in inclusive education. The literature agrees that general and special education should not exist as separate entities. Current approaches available for educational use are complex and flexible options for meeting the needs of individuals with special needs. However, there is no consensus on the best practice of inclusive education. Some educators have proposed that inclusive education is an illusion, not necessarily supported by research; while others have discussed its effectiveness.

The advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its impact on education systems beginning in 2020 also had implications for inclusive education. Like all levels of education, many of these impacts were negative. Nonetheless, many positive aspects and opportunities of distance learning became apparent for inclusive education processes. One example was the use of online synchronous instruction that allowed continued learning between students with cognitive disabilities along with the rest of their class.

Inclusive education will remain a dynamic entity that requires complex decision making among all stakeholders in order to be successful. As public educational policy continues to be altered, so will the attitudes and beliefs of educators. This pertains to both special and regular education and the families involved. Educators should continue to shift focus from a "one-size fits all" educational practice and think in terms of effectively meeting the unique needs of all children. In this regard, it is critical for educators and service providers to recognize that decisions will impact each child differently, regardless of ability. However, the need exists for all professionals in regular and special education to remain focused on providing individualized educational opportunities based on the unique needs of the individual, while successfully meeting the needs of the entire group.

Terms & Concepts

Collaboration: Collaboration is a process where two or more people work together to develop plans and solutions to solve a problem or conflict.

Consultation: Consultation is a practice that various education specialists (i.e., regular, special or related service providers) use to identify needed modifications for the individual with special needs.

Inclusive Education: Inclusive education is a philosophical belief that all students, regardless of ability, should be educated together in schools.

Diversity Training: Diversity training refers to educating individuals about the differences among different cultural groups (i.e., customs, beliefs, values, etc.)

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): The federal law that ensures all children, regardless of ability, the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE)

Learning Centers: Learning centers are often used as a teaching technique to allow students to practice or review activities in small groups.

Support Systems: Support systems are viewed as activities that can be used in the learning or home environment to assist with the learning process.

Team Teaching: Team teaching is a method that allows teachers to work collaboratively together in developing instructional strategies.

Bibliography

A history of the individuals with disabilities education act. (2024, February 16). US Dept. of Education. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History

Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1995). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52 , 33- 35.

Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20 . Retrieved March 28, 2007 from PsycARTICLES database.

Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across iclusive and traditional settings. [Electronic Version] Mental Retardation, 42 , 136-144. Retrieved June 7, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier.

Dennis, R. E., Williams, W., Giangreco, M. F., & Cloninger, C. J. (1993). Quality of life as context for planning and evaluation of services for people with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 499-512.

Duhaney, G., Salend, L. M., & Spencer, J. (2000). Parental perceptions of inclusive educational placements. Remedial & Special Education, 21 . Retrieved April 11, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Ehren, B. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility for student success: Keys to in-classroom speech-language services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 219-229.

Feiler, A. & Gibson, H. (1999). Threats to the inclusive movement. British Journal of Special Education, 26 , 147-153.

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64 Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Giangreco, M. F. & Taylor, S. J. (2003). "Scientifically based research" and qualitative inquiry. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28 , 133- Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier.

Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. (1995). From mainstreaming to collaborative consultation. In Kauffman & Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 5-17). Austin, TX: Pro- Ed Publishing.

Inclusive education. (2017). UNICEF. Retrieved September 5, 2024, from https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE‗summary‗accessible‗220917‗brief.pdf

Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S., & Speltz, M. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool children with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 420-428.

Johnson, G.M. (1999). Inclusive education: Fundamental instructional strategies and considerations. Preventing School Failure,43 Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier,

Kauffman, J. & Hallahan, D. (1995). Toward a comprehensive delivery system for special education. In Kauffman & Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp.157-191). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Publishing.

King-Sears, M. E. (2007). Designing and delivering learning center instruction. Intervention in school & clinic, 42 , 137-147.

King & Youngs, (2003). Secondary classroom teachers' views on inclusion. Review of Research in Education, 30,.

Kurth, J., Gross, M., & Lovinger, S. (2012). Grading students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings: Teacher perspectives. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 13, 41-57. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Magiera, K., Lawrence-Brown, D., Bloomquist, K., Foster, C., Figueroa, A., Glatz, K., Heppeler, D., & Rodriguez, P. (2006). On the road to more collaborative teaching: One school's experience. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 2 , Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete

Mastropeiri, M., Scruggs, T., Berkeley, S. (2007). Peers helping peers. Educational Leadership, 64 Retrieved May 10, 2007 from EBSCO online database,

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N.L. (2002). School change and inclusive schools: LESSONS LEARNED FROM PRACTICE. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in school & clinic, 42 , 162-168. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Meyer, J. (1997). Models of service delivery. In O'Connell (Ed.), Speech, Language, and Hearing Programs in Schools (pp. 241-277). Aspen publications Maryland: Gaithersburg.

Meyer, J., Crouch, T., Clapper, N. (2007). Intervention and models of service delivery In Gravani & Meyer (Eds). Speech, language, and hearing programs in schools: A guide for students and practitioners (pp 245-309). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed publishers.

Murray, C. (2004). Clarifying collaborative roles in urban high schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36 , 44-51.

Paul, R. (2000). Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Assessment & Interventions (2nd edition) St. Louis: Mosby Inc.

Peck, C.A., Furman, G.C. , Helmstetter, E. (1992), "Integrated early childhood programs: research on the implementation of change in organizational contexts." In Peck, Odom, & Bricker, (Eds). Integrating Young Children with Disabilities into Community Programs: Ecological Perspectives on Research and Implementation (pp.187-205). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Price, Mayfield, McFadden, & Marsh (2000). Collaborative teaching: Special education for inclusive classrooms. Parrot Publishing [electronic version only]

Russell,S. & Kaderavek, J. (1993). Alternative models for collaboration. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 76-78.

Salend, S., Duhaney, J. & Garrick, L. (2002). What do families have to say about inclusion? Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 Retrieved May 1, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier.

Sebba, J. & Ainscow, M. (1996). Cambridge International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues. Journal of Education, 26 Retrieved May 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete.

Smith, D., & Tyler, N. (2011). Effective inclusive education: Equipping education professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects (00331538), 41, 323-339. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Thompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1995) Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4 . Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Weigert, S. C. (2012). Aligning and inventing practices to achieve inclusive assessment Policies: A decade of work toward optimal access for US students with disabilities 2001–2011. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 59, 21-36. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Suggested Reading

Ghere, G., Taub, D., Vandercook, T. and Sommerness, J. Distance Learning and the Future of Inclusive Education. University of Minnesota. Retrieved May 15, 2023, from https://publications.ici.umn.edu/impact/34-1/distance-learning-and-the-future-of-inclusive-education

Gravani & Meyer (Eds). (2007). Speech, language, and hearing programs in schools: A guide for students and practitioners. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed publishers.

Kauffman & Hallahan (Eds.). (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: Pro- Ed Publishing.

(March 9, 2023). Re-imagining the Future of Inclusive Education. Simon Fraser University. Retrieved May 15, 2023, from https://www.sfu.ca/education/news-events/2023/march-2023/re-imagining-the-future-of-inclusive-education.html

Peck, Odom, & Bricker, (Eds). (1992). Integrating Young Children with Disabilities into Community Programs: Ecological Perspectives on Research and Implementation. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.