Inclusion Main Page

Research Highlights
    Rationale
    Validated Practices
    Promising Practices
    Research Studies

Frequently Asked Questions

Classroom Instruction and Models

Case Study

Product Reviews

Book Reviews

Return to Home Page

Research Highlights: Rationale

As formal education systems have evolved, the understanding of a free and appropriate public education for all has also evolved. At the end of the 1800's and the beginning of 1900's, many children remained segregated or ignored (Karagiannis, Stainback, and Stainback, 1997, p. 19) Not until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) were attempts made to integrate marginalized students such as minorities and children with special needs (Ibid., p. 20). Court decisions in Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1971, 1972) and the District of Columbia (Mills v. D.C. Board of Education, 1972) opened the doors for legislation, giving all children, particularly those with disabilities, access to a free, appropriate public education (the Education for All Handicapped Children, later referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - IDEA) (Ibid.)

Currently, in the United States Public School System, increasing numbers of children are being identified with special needs and a growing percentage of them are being included in the general education classroom. According to the Twenty-Second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2000), "more than eleven percent of students ages 6 through 17 received special education and related services during the 1998 - 99 school year." (p. vii) "Seventy-five percent of the more than 5.5 million 6- through 21- year-olds with disabilities served under IDEA in 1997-1998 were educated in regular classrooms, with their non-disabled peers." (p. viii)

While inclusive practices grow, so do the arguments surrounding them. Researchers have found several misconceptions held by stakeholders in the community. They fall into three broad categories:

1. Inclusion is dumping - refers to the concern that students with disabilities will be placed in the general education classroom without ANY supports or services.
   
   
2. Students may not receive ALL entitled services in general education classrooms.
   
   
3. Inclusion is a full-time placement - refers to the misconception that student with disabilities cannot be removed from the general education classroom to receive services in an alternative setting if appropriate.

Yet, supporters believe inclusion is a means of providing students with opportunities to learn and connect with the community:

• "Inclusion is the provision of services to students with disabilities including those with severe impairments, in the neighborhood school, in age-appropriate general education classes, with the necessary supports, services and supplementary aids (for the child and the teacher) both to assure the child's success - academic, behavioral, and social - and to prepare the child to participate as a full and contributing member in society." (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996, p. 763)
  
  
• "An inclusive school is a place where everyone belongs, is accepted, supports, and is supported by his or her peers and other members of the school community in the course of having his or her educational needs met." (Stainback & Stainback, 1990, p. 3)
  
  
• "Inclusive schooling practices are those that lead to the creation of supportive educational communities in which services necessary to meet the individual needs of all students are available." (McGregor & Vogelsberg, 1998, p. 11)
  

Beginning in the 1817 with the establishment of Gallaudet, services for students with disabilities were developed and began to be provided (Villa & Thousand, 2000). At that time, these services were typically delivered to students in residential institutions, separate schools, and special classes, but not in the general education classroom. In addition, most students who had been classified as requiring special education services were removed from the general education classroom and never returned. Over the past two decades, special education services have evolved to offer more service delivery options and be more inclusive. The amendments to IDEA in 1997 emphasize this inclusive philosophy by stating, over 20 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by -

having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access in the general education curriculum to the maximum extent possible. (IDEA, Sec. 601 [c][5][A], 1997)

These "high expectations" are integrated into each student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) which is used to guide and monitor student growth in all domains. IDEA '97 also added that children with special needs "are included in general state and district - wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary." (IDEA Sec. 612 [a][17][A], 1997) to ensure that these children truly have access to the general education curriculum by making teachers and schools accountable for it. According to Nolet and McLaughlin in their book Accessing the General Curriculum: Including Students with disabilities in Standards-Based Reform, "the 1997 Reauthorization is intended to ensure that students with disabilities have access to challenging curriculum and that their educational programs are based on high expectations that acknowledge each student's potential and ultimate contribution to society." (2000, p. 2)

Yet a distinction remains between access to the general education classroom and placement in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). IDEA '97 defines the LRE,

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (Sec. 612 [a][5][A], 1997)

If the general education classroom is not the LRE for a child and he/she is not included, the school must still provide access to the general education curriculum to the maximum extent possible. C.A. Tomlinson (1999) emphasized consideration of access in self-contained settings and wrote "in full accord with common sense and classroom experience, much of the best research suggests that for struggling learners, such homogeneous learning experiences go awry…. Too often in these settings, teacher's expectations for the struggling learners decline, materials are simplified, the level of discourse is less than sterling, and the pace slackens." (Capper, Frattura, and Keyes, 2000, p. 9) If the general education classroom is the LRE for a child, it is equally important to ensure that the child is accessing the curriculum within that classroom rather than simply being included. "Access to the general education curriculum means more than simply being present in a general education classroom. Access requires that students with disabilities be provided with the supports necessary to allow them to benefit from instruction." (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000, p. 9) Succinctly stated, Inclusion refers to placement, while Access refers to services.

back to top