Inclusive Education

Abstract

The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act establishes a preference for inclusion in educating children with disabilities. Inclusion refers to the practice of teaching children with disabilities in the regular education classroom. The establishment of inclusion as the predominant service delivery model for special education developed as a result of ideological and attitudinal changes in society. These changes reflected that many came to believe that disabilities are social constructions influenced by sociocultural contexts. The inclusion model attempts to improve attitudes toward those with disabilities by promoting a diverse and tolerant society.

Overview

Societal expectations and opportunities afforded to people with disabilities have historically been less than premium, especially in regard to educational opportunities. In fact, prior to 1965, people with disabilities were frequently denied education or were institutionalized because they were deemed unable to care for themselves (Yell, 1998).

Attitudes toward people with disabilities have changed, however, and schools have changed the way they view and deliver services to those with special needs. One service delivery model that has been controversial but that is predominant in schools is inclusion. Inclusion is the practice of teaching special education students in the regular education classroom. This is done by providing instructional modifications and support through curriculum changes or the assistance of teacher aides and special education teachers in collaboration with the regular classroom teacher.

The practice of inclusion has been controversial for several reasons. First, the concept of inclusion has been somewhat amorphous. Although the principles that underlie inclusion have been encoded into law, the term itself is not part of the legal mandate on how to educate people with special needs. Thus, researchers, practitioners, parents, people with disabilities, and the courts have had to develop, through trial, error, and discussion, the concept of what inclusion is and how it can be most effectively implemented. Second, the changing nature of how disabilities are defined is embedded in sociopolitical contexts that have been historically discriminatory. For instance, in the 1980s, reexamination of the labeling practices in special education led to the realization that many minority and low-income students were disproportionately being labeled as having learning disabilities (Gelzheiser, 1990; Tomlinson, 2014). This was an indication that the perceived "disabilities" of these students may have been the result of sociocultural factors rather than medical issues within the child. As a result of this history, controversies over inclusion are also controversies over the goals of education in general and how those goals reproduce or redefine societal inequities.

Legal Basis of Inclusion. The legal basis for inclusion is inscribed in two pieces of legislation. The 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the 1997 amendment to that Act, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was again amended in 2004. Before the establishment of these laws, nearly one million children were excluded from public education because they were considered uneducable, and many were institutionalized (Yell, 1998).

The IDEA provides children with disabilities with rights to a free and appropriate public education in an integrative environment. This includes the right to be educated with peers who do not have disabilities. The law does not prohibit special classes or programs that are separate from regular classes. However, it states that placing students in separate environments must be consistent with the individual needs of the child. Furthermore, it should only occur when the child's disability prevents the child from achieving satisfactorily in the regular classroom, even when given supplementary aids and services. To satisfactorily meet all children's needs, a continuum of placements must be available (Yell, 1998).

Further legislation aimed to ensure education equality. In 2010, the Blueprint for Reform of the ESEA was proposed by the Obama Administration, signed in 2015, and took effect in 2017. This change aimed to create opportunities for all students by taking into account "achievements of disadvantaged students, including students in poverty, minorities, learners in special education and those with limited command of English" (UNESCO, 2021). In 2015, Title VI of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) ensured Native American students are able to access education that is inclusive of their culture and community. Other laws are put into place at the state level (UNESCO, 2021).

Least Restrictive Environment. The key concept of these laws that have been the impetus for inclusion is that of the least restrictive environment. Determining what the least restrictive environment is for any particular child is a complex process involving teachers, administrators, parents, and the courts. Three court cases have served to clarify the meaning of least restrictive environment.

In Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (1989), the court used three factors to determine compliance with the law. First, the court considered whether the student would benefit academically or socially from being in the regular classroom. Second, it examined what the student's overall educational experience would be in the mainstream, pointing out that if the child were to suffer from the experience, then it would be a violation of the Act's mandate for an appropriate education. Finally, the court asked what effect the presence of the student with disabilities would have on the education of other students in the classroom (Yell, 1998). These guidelines for interpreting the least restrictive environment were reinforced with the 1994 court case Sacramento City School District v. Rachel H, which echoed the three principal standards for judicial review of special education cases.

However, in the third court case, Hartmann vs. Loudoun County (1997), the court interpreted the least restrictive environment clause as presenting a preference for inclusion. That is, schools were expected to use inclusion unless one of three conditions existed:

• The child would not receive educational benefits from the regular classroom;
• The marginal benefits of inclusion would be significantly outweighed by benefits obtained in a separate facility;
• The child would be a disruptive force in the regular classroom (Gitlow, 1999).

Values Basis for Inclusion. While the court cases have provided a legal basis, the predominant supporting argument for inclusion is values based. This is founded on the social justice perspective that the United States is a diverse democracy, and that people must learn to tolerate individual differences. By integrating students with disabilities in the classroom, proponents of inclusion say that children without disabilities become more compassionate and caring, and children with disabilities have the best chance to learn how to socialize with peers without disabilities. This perspective also reflects a fundamental philosophical position that schools as social organizations are transformative. By creating ideal societies in schools, schools will redefine the way society is shaped in the future. While some have advocated that all children with disabilities be educated in the regular classroom, opponents of this say that the goals of social equity cannot replace the mission of the school to ensure the individual child learns as much as possible. Those with this view believe that individual achievement is the primary function of school, and they point out that not every child does well in the regular classroom. Thus, students have the right to whatever kind of classroom best meets their needs, whether that be full-inclusion, partial inclusion, or a separate classroom (Benner, 1998; Sapon-Shevin, 2003).

In general, IDEA encompasses both of these viewpoints by granting a preference to inclusion through the least restrictive environment mandate while, at the same time, requiring that a continuum of placements take into account the best interests of the child.

Further Insights

Inequities in the System. Whether one stands for full or partial inclusion as being the fairest way to treat students, the argument that students with disabilities must be treated fairly is a fundamental concern of those who have advocated for special education reform. This concern reflects the realization by parents, professionals, and other experts in the field that the special education system has not always been a fair one.

In part, this unfairness has been recognized by sociologists as one of the unfortunate truths about power and social groupings in society. In terms of special education and the treatment of individuals with disabilities, the inequities created by such categorizing have often been systematic and have allowed societal prejudices to influence how disabilities have been defined.

Perceptions of People with Disabilities. Uncovering the ideologies and attitudes that created unfairness for individuals with disabilities was an important concern of special education reform advocates in the 1970s and 1980s. It was partially due to these voices that inclusion gained the support that it did. One of the attitudes that advocates for inclusion sought to change related to the perception that individuals with disabilities were not as capable as those without disabilities. To begin to understand this, one must first be aware that disabilities had been defined in relation to what was considered a "norm" for society. To be healthy, with full function of one's limbs, senses and systems was considered the norm. Anything different than this was considered deviant: a disability. This perspective was the foundation for the most basic type of discrimination against people with disabilities because it invited individuals to see those with disabilities not just as different but as being less than normal, and consequently, not as capable as their peers without disabilities. As a result of this perception, at one time, individuals with disabilities were grouped according to their disability instead of according to their cognitive abilities.

For instance, in some schools, students with physical impairments might have been grouped in a special classroom even if they were of different ages or had varying intellectual abilities. This often resulted in students not performing very well. Advocates for people with disabilities and inclusion argued that this system was unfair. They pointed out that the individual who has always had a disability views this state as a normal state of being. Thus, the individual with a physical impairment but highly functioning cognitive abilities should be able to achieve educationally to the same levels as able-bodied peers. Inclusion advocates pointed out that the first element of inequity underlying the US special education system related to how society perceived the abilities of those labeled with disabilities (Benner, 1998; Tomlinson, 2014).

Labeling. Another cause for inequity in the system resulted from basing the norm for society on White, middle-class culture and experience. This resulted in disproportionately high numbers of low-income and minority students being labeled as having learning disabilities. How did this happen? In a society that has a history of segregation and school systems that are predominated by White, middle-class teachers and administrators, the curriculum, methodologies, language, and cultural references used in many classrooms have been traditionally those familiar to students from White middle-class backgrounds. Thus, students from this background have tended to do well in this environment. However, the United States is a diverse society with many cultures and subcultures that have different linguistic, behavioral, and attitudinal norms. Therefore, when many students from these culturally diverse backgrounds arrived in school, their differences became obstacles to achievement.

Research has shown that it was often the clash in cultures that led to poor performance of low-income and minority students in a White, middle class school system (Heath, 1983). At the time, because some students could do well in the environment, when other students performed poorly, the schools assumed that the students were disadvantaged in some way. In the 1960s, five categories of disadvantage were defined including: "slow learners, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, culturally deprived and learning disabled" (Sleeter, 1990, p. 27). The category of culturally deprived stands out in contemporary society as discriminatory and racist, and in fact, by 1970, this category was eliminated along with the categories of "slow learner" and "mentally retarded." However, eliminating these labels did not eliminate the disparity in achievement for many students; therefore, many were reclassified as having learning disabilities. In the mid-1970s and 1980s, society began to question why there were disproportionately high numbers of minorities and low-income students categorized as having learning disabilities. This was a symptom, many concluded, that something was inherently wrong with the system (Sleeter, 1990; Tomlinson, 2014).

Defining Norms. A final cause for the creation of inequities in the system resulted from how the norm for achievement was (and is) defined. This is especially related to categorizing those with learning disabilities, which, in 1963, described children who were not achieving the levels of literacy that was expected of them (Sleeter, 1990). It was the discrepancy between what they should have been able to achieve and what they did not achieve that defined their disability. Yet expectations for literacy are culturally bound, frequently politicized, and subject to change. Sleeter (1990) explains how changing literacy standards increased the number of people with learning disabilities in the United States by tracing the changes in elementary textbooks from the 1930s to the 1970s. Until 1962, texts were somewhat less challenging, but following the 1957 Soviet launch of the first satellite Sputnik into space, Americans criticized schools for not producing enough scientists and technicians to remain internationally competitive. Subsequently, reading standards were raised and tests were re-normed. Sleeter (1990) points out that what happened is that many students could not meet the new standards and were shuffled into the categories described in the paragraphs above. Their failure to meet higher standards was attributed to the presence of personal deficiencies rather than as the result of unrealistic societal expectations.

The Social Construction Model vs. the Medical Model. The existence of sociocultural factors that influence how disabilities are defined and how individuals with disabilities are perceived have certainly impacted the movement towards inclusion in education. With a growing awareness by parents, teachers, and other reformers of how disabilities were being socially constructed, many wanted a reappraisal of the system that segregated those with disabilities. In accepting the social construction model of disability, reformers challenged the traditional medical model of disability. While the medical model located the source of a disability within the child, the social construction model posited that disabilities were created by the interaction of the child within the school system (Gelzheiser, 1990). To clarify this point, it was the presence of uniform standards that led to the classification of some children as deviant from the norm. Thus, advocates for inclusion said classrooms not only needed to be integrated, they also needed to redefine their norms. Instead of expecting all children to be the same, inclusive classrooms, advocates said, should support individualized goals that incorporate multiple levels of achievement. In practice, this requires creating a community of learners that believes all individuals are unique and that individual achievements should be valued.

Viewpoints: The Efficacy of Inclusion. Other factors that brought about the movement towards inclusion included perceptions in the 1980s that special education programs were not efficient or effective. In 1986, Madeline Will, who was then the Director of the Office of Special Education, criticized four aspects of the special education system:

• The number of categorical programs were fragmented;
• It was inefficient for schools to operate two separate systems for regular and special education;
• Students with disabilities were being socially stigmatized; and
• The rigid eligibility requirements and placement options were causing tension between schools and parents (Benner, 1998).

By adopting the inclusive delivery model, many hoped not only to improve social connections between peers with and without disabilities, but also to eliminate time wasted from students transitioning between regular and special education classrooms and to improve overall program efficiency.

Whether inclusion will remain the predominant delivery model will depend ultimately on whether it is perceived by parents, teachers, and policymakers to be effective. Some of the criticisms of inclusion that may be pitfalls to the approach are that,

• Regular education teachers are not equipped to handle such a wide range of abilities in the classroom;
• Special education teachers and regular education teachers do not always work well together, and, in some instances, the unique training of the special education teacher is not being put to best use; and
• Some kids just do not do well in the regular environment, which is why they need special education in the first place (Benner, 1998).

Determining the effectiveness of inclusion may take some time, for limited research is available on long-term outcomes. One study found that parents are generally positive about the social and emotional outcomes of inclusion, but they still have concerns about social isolation, negative attitudes, instructional quality, teacher training, and support from other teachers and parents (Leyser & Kirk, 2004). More studies will be needed that compare the effects of regular education and inclusive education programs on student achievement or that assess what makes inclusive programs successful. An interesting study in this category examined high functioning autistic children in public schools and found that educating the other children in the classroom about the developmental disability led to a greater degree of social acceptance and more positive experiences for children with autism (Ochs, Kremer-Sadlik, Solomon, & Sirota, 2001). This finding, at least, seems to support the values-oriented inclusion goal of increasing understanding and tolerance of individual differences.

Inclusive education is a model of special education that developed because complex ideological and attitudinal shifts have occurred in the United States. As society has become more educated about how social organizations create, change, and maintain social perceptions and inequities, new standards for equality have developed. These standards are more accepting of diversity and less tolerant of prejudice. The result for those with disabilities is the chance for many to achieve an education in a manner long denied to those who came before them.

Terms & Concepts

Community of Learners: The phrase used to describe an educational environment in which all members of the community, including the teacher, are thought to learn from every other member of the community.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The amendment to the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This amendment is generally considered to include a preference for inclusive education.

Least Restrictive Environment: The educational environment which is closest to that of the regular classroom environment and which is appropriate to the individual needs of the child.

Medical Model of Disability: Views disabilities as being located within the individual and not affected by social context.

Regular Education Classroom: The classroom that children who do not have disabilities always attend and which children with disabilities attend when they are not in a special education classroom.

Service Delivery Model: The general term for describing how special education services will be provided to the child.

Social Construction Model of Disability: Views disabilities as resulting from the interaction of an individual within the social environment.

Bibliography

Allen, H. R., & Harriott, W. A. (2011). Administrative Responsibility: Providing Resources for Students with Special Needs in Inclusive Classrooms. National Social Science Journal, 37, 1–7. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65481617

Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the Education System. Future Of Children, 22, 97–122. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=75184693

Benner, S. M. (1998). Special education issues within the context of American society. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Danforth, S. (2016). Social justice and technocracy: Tracing the narratives of inclusive education in the USA. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(4), 582–599. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=116395703&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gelzheiser, L.M. (1990). Reducing the number of students identified as learning disabled: A question of practice, philosophy, or policy? In S. Sigman (Ed.). Critical voices on special education: Problems and progress concerning the mildly handicapped (pp. 43-50). State University of New York Press.

Gitlow, L. (1999). Individuals with disabilities and professional education programmes: An analysis of legislation, court rulings and policy. Disability & Society, 14(2), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599926307

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge.

Lalvani, P. (2013). Privilege, compromise, or social justice: teachers’ conceptualizations of inclusive education. Disability & Society, 28, 14–27. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84103346

Leyser, Y., & Kirk, R. (2004). Evaluating inclusion: An examination of parent views and factors influencing their perspectives. International Journal of Disability 51(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912042000259233

Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O., & Sirota, K. (2001). Inclusion as social practice: Views of children with autism. Social Development 10, 399–419. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6374007&site=ehost-live

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion: A matter of social justice. Educational Leadership, 61, 25–28. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11868843&site=ehost-live

Sleeter, C. E. (1990). Learning disabilities: The social construction of a special education category. In S. Sigman (Ed.). Critical voices on special education: Problems and progress concerning the mildly handicapped (pp. 21–34). State University of New York Press.

Tomlinson, S. (2014). A sociology of special education. Routledge.

UNESCO. (2021, Sept. 9). Inclusion. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://education-profiles.org/europe-and-northern-america/united-states-of-america/~inclusion

Yell, M. (1998). The legal basis of inclusion. Educational Leadership, 56, 70–73. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1228529&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Allen, K., & Cowdery, G.E. (2022). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood education (9th ed.). Cengage.

Chowdhury, P. (2011). The right to inclusive education of persons with disabilities: The policy and practice implications. Asia-Pacific Journal On Human Rights & The Law,12, 1–35. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=73982322

Corbett, J. (1996). Bad-mouthing: The language of special needs. The Falmer Press.

Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2017). Blended practices for teaching young children in inclusive settings (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Kgothule, R., & Hay, J. (2013). Educators' views on management practices in the implementation of inclusive education: An ecosystemic approach. Journal Of Human Ecology, 42, 33–41. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87357032

Tomlinson, S. (2014). A sociology of special education. Routledge.