Inclusion: The Pointless Debate

Inclusion. The dictionary defines it simply as "the act of including, the state of being included" www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inclusion‎
It seems like a harmless enough idea. "All for one and one for all," "We're all in this together." It's nice to be included.

Yet, use the term in relation to Special Education and you may find yourself in the midst of a very heated debate. In this context, inclusion refers to the education of a student who receives special education services in the general education classroom. It can be for all or part of the school day. 

There are valid and well-supported arguments to be made both for and against inclusion in general. They seem to revolve around four central issues as they relate to ALL students, not just those with disabilities. They are:

• academic benefit,
• nonacademic benefit,
• classroom management and
• financial cost.

Do students with disabilities learn better academically in an inclusive classroom alongside typically developing peers? 
Does the presence of students with disabilities adversely affect the typically developing student's ability to learn? 
Does being in a regular classroom subject children with disabilities to bullying and ridicule? 
Does it help children in their social and emotional development to be in a more inclusive environment? 
Can a teacher be an effective educator in a classroom which includes students with disabilities?  

As I said, there are valid points to be made for and against inclusion in general. And therein lies the problem. Inclusion is not something that should be considered in general terms. Rather, as with everything else in Special Education, the nature and extent of inclusion in the general education classroom must be determined on an individual basis by the student's IEP team.  

The term "inclusion" isn't even used in the Federal statutes; nor is the term officially defined by the US Department of Education. It is an instructional model which, like mainstreaming and integration, developed in response to the IDEA requirement that students with disabilities be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment.  To be in compliance, Section 1412(a)(5) provides that States must ensure:

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 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. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)

So, while Federal law does require disabled students to be educated with their non-disabled peers as much as practicable, or "to the maximum extent appropriate," it also acknowledges that 100% inclusion in the regular classroom may not always be the best way to meet a child's specific educational needs. 

Unfortunately, as with most laws, there are always going to be examples of misinterpretation, misapplication and outright disregard to help fuel the debate. An inappropriate or unsupported placement in the general education classroom can result in a poor learning environment for everyone. On the other hand, the unnecessary segregation of a student whose needs can adequately be met in a general education setting can have devastating consequences for the child. 

In reading the public comments to different news articles and blog entries on the inclusion debate, I was startled by the pervasive misconception as to the nature and extent of the disabilities of students receiving special education services under the IDEA.  Again, there is this tendency to over generalize, using only students with the most severe cognitive disabilities as the example. In order to put things in perspective, I offer the following "general" information pulled from the most recent data provided by the National Center for Education Statistics:

• 13% of all students receive Special Education services 
  
• Of that 13%, 4.9% are students with a specific learning disability such as dyslexia and other information processing disorders.
• 2.9% suffer from speech or language impairments such as stuttering which inhibit their ability to communicate effectively.
• 1.4% fall under "other health impairment" which includes ADHD.
• 1% suffer from either an orthopedic, visual or hearing impairment or a developmental delay.
  
• 0.8% are classified with an emotional disturbance which includes anxiety disorders, OCD and eating disorders as well as bipolar and conduct disorders
• 0.8% fall somewhere on the autism spectrum
• A little over 1% are categorized as having an intellectual disability, a traumatic brain injury or multiple disabilities

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Digest of Education Statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001), Chapter 2.

Given the diversity of the disabled student population, and the variance of severity possible within each disability category, the very idea of making decisions regarding how and where they should be educated on anything other than an individual basis seems preposterous.