This document discusses the debate around inclusive education. It defines inclusive education as educating all students, regardless of ability, together in the same environment with necessary supports. The document outlines legal, moral, and empirical reasons why inclusion should be adopted, noting that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires educating students in the least restrictive environment. However, it also acknowledges that full inclusion may not be appropriate for every student and that individual needs must be assessed to determine the appropriate level of inclusion. It provides an example of one student, Student K, who would likely benefit more from a separate classroom due to behaviors that could disrupt other students.

1. Sarah D’Amico
December 14, 2013
SPM499
Professor Bateman
Final Version
The Inclusive Education Debate
Inclusive education is the philosophy that all students, regardless of ability, should
participate within the same environment, with necessary support and individualized attention.
Inclusion differs from integration, which is simply putting disabled students in the same setting
as their peers, because inclusion is incorporating the students into the setting by ending
discrimination and demonstrating that all students have the right to be there (Angelides & Aravi
2007). Currently, the controversy around inclusion in special education is quite apparent, with
arguments coming from both the inclusion and exclusion sides of the debate. Exclusive
education goes against inclusion’s philosophy by supporting separate classrooms and schools as
the preferred method for special education. Some, like Kauffman et al. (2005), believe that there
are disadvantages to inclusive education.
However, when the arguments against inclusion that are neither sound nor valid are
removed, it turns out that there is not much left to debate. Upon learning what it actually means
to be part of an inclusive special education program, many of the arguments against inclusion are
irrelevant, leaving inclusion as the clear path for special education to follow.
There are legal, moral, and rational reasons (Bailey et al. 1998) why inclusion should be
adopted in all schools, based on empirical research demonstrating that inclusion is beneficial in
social, academic (Waldron & McKlesky 1998), and behavioral (Laushey & Heflin 2000) areas.
Success of inclusion programs is based on funding and resources, but even more important to
their success are the teachers’ attitudes toward special education in general, their attitudes toward
the included students in the classroom, and their acceptance of inclusive practices (Cameron &
Cook 2013, Cook 2001). Inclusion for 100% of the school day will not work for every student;
however, the amount of inclusive time in the school day must be calculated on an individual
basis. Each student should be included for as much of the school day as is appropriate. Many
people who do not support inclusive education programs feel this way because they have only
been exposed to low quality programs (Bailey et al. 1998), or programs that lack the funding or
the understanding for a successful inclusion program to exist at their site. The problem here is
not the philosophy of inclusion, but the way the program tries to implement it.
Legal Reasons
Among the four reasons chosen by Bailey et al. (1998), legal reasons are the first to be
discussed. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that children with
disabilities should be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) available, depending
on their needs. The IDEA defines the concept of LRE as
“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

2. disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA
Sec. 612 (a)[5]).
There are many examples of what the LRE can look like in a school setting. The least
restrictive example is when a disabled student is in the same classroom and participates in the
same activities as the typical students for 100% of the school day, without any support from
supplementary aids. However, the least restrictive environment for another disabled student
might be that he or she spends 100% of the school day in an inclusive setting, but does need
some supplementary support. One can gather from this that full-inclusion (inclusion for 100% of
the school day) is less restrictive than part-time inclusion (inclusion for any fraction of the school
day).
As the IDEA states, all of these scenarios still fall under the umbrella of what is allowed
in an inclusive setting, including the use of supplementary aids and services when they are
necessary. These supports can include paraprofessionals, peer tutors, special educators, therapists
(speech, physical, occupational), and others. Paraprofessionals, who are people to whom a
particular aspect of a professional task is delegated but who are not licensed to practice as a fully
qualified professional, are a very common source of supplementary support. Peer tutors,
sometimes called peer buddies, are helpful regular education students, who are often in the same
class as the disabled student. This source of support has been shown to be very successful for the
appropriate socialization of autistic children (Laushey & Heflin 2000). Special educators and
therapists are those with specific training in special education and particular types of therapy,
respectively.
It is only when all of these supports are not enough for the child to reach their
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals that one would make the environment more
restrictive. These goals, usually referred to simply as IEPs, are quarterly and yearly benchmarks,
like those for regular educated students written by the state, that are written individually to tailor
to specifics. Making the learning environment more restrictive should start by decreasing the
amount of inclusion and increasing the amount of aid, until it seems necessary to place the
student in a separate special class, or separate school. Inclusive education has legal foundations
because, although law does not mandate inclusion, it does mandate placement in the LRE.
However, it is possible that inclusion is the least restrictive environment in which a child can
receive the appropriate education.
Kauffman et al. (2005) try to make the argument that full inclusion with any number of
supports will never work. However, they consider inclusion as an all-or-none option. It is a myth
that inclusion is an all-or-none option, as the IDEA’s definition of the LRE as it applies to
inclusive education shows that the LRE—and therefore, inclusion—is measured on a continuum,
with inclusion time during the day decreased, and amount of supplementary aid increased, as
necessary. This leads me to say that Kauffman et al. are correct when they claim that not all
disabled students are a good fit for a full-inclusion program. However, neither the IDEA nor I are
denying the truth of this claim. Although inclusion is highly beneficial, I do not support the idea
that all students should be included 100% of the time. This will work for some students, but
others will need specialized services that can only be provided one-on-one. These include
specific speech and physical therapies, and assistance with grooming (diapering, etc.) and
personal hygiene. Therapies could possibly be provided in inclusion if programs are restructured

3. to incorporate small group activities that still give attention to individual needs. To further
demonstrate this point, I will provide a specific example of “Student K” and her behaviors.
Student K is a student I have interacted with through my work. She can be distracted by
what goes on around her, but most of the problem is the other way around. She can be very
distracting to other students, and even to teachers who are not accustomed to her. A behavior
analyst has become very familiar with Student K’s behaviors and has worked with others to
develop a behavior plan for her. As Student K has grown older and grown out of some behaviors,
her protocol has become a little less extensive, but it is still very strict. Part of this strict protocol
is a cycle that is repeated throughout the entire school day. Student K is to be given five minutes
of “low attention” time, where she is mostly left alone. This prepares her for the next phase of
the cycle, ten minutes of “academic work.” The third and final part of the cycle is “leisure time”
for five minutes, where Student K chooses to participate in a number of activities (walking,
listening to music, and looking at catalogs, among other things). The only times the cycle is
interrupted are to use the restroom and to eat lunch. Academic time can distract other students
because some of the activities can be noisy. Depending on what activity the student chooses for
leisure, this can also be a distracting time. For example, Student K cannot use headphones (a
safety hazard for her), so audibly listening to music can easily disrupt the class.
Paraprofessionals could try and force Student K to leave the room for this activity, but she does
not always cooperate well, which turns into an entirely different distracting experience for
everyone else in the classroom. Student K has this protocol in place because of the behaviors she
exudes and the hazards of some of her actions. It is not out of the ordinary for Student K to throw
her academic objects, put anything she can get her hands on into her mouth, and make many
vocalizations, sometimes for an extended period of time at a very high volume. Student K can be
very unpredictable, and this makes it difficult to ensure her safety and others’ while in a full
inclusion program.
Student K is a case where time in a separate class, and very limited time in an inclusive
setting, would probably be the best option. The examples of students and settings I have
provided thus far indicate how different each disabled student and their needs are. Where a
disabled student falls on this LRE/inclusion continuum must be assessed individually. There are
disabled students that could thrive in a full-inclusion, or part-time inclusion, program with the
proper supports if given the opportunity, and they have the right to this option before being
excluded.
Moral Reasons
Inclusive educational practices have moral foundations as well. Something I consider a
moral obligation is to keep children from being bullied whenever possible. The sad truth is that
children experience bullying in both mainstream and special schools. However, research
conducted by Norwich & Kelly (2004), provided evidence that students at special schools
experienced more bullying by students at other schools, children in their neighborhood, and other
peers. As I mention later, inclusion leads to greater peer acceptance of people with disabilities,
and it seems as though the earlier and more frequently people are exposed to inclusive settings,
the better all children will be treated.
More often than for the prevention of bullying, the moral arguments for inclusive
education share parallels to the civil rights movement and the desegregation of students in school
based on race. The bottom line is that disabled children have the right to learn in the least
restrictive environment possible. They should not just be placed in a separate school or

4. classroom only because they have a disability. There are many instances where a disability does
not interfere with the ability to learn certain subjects. For example, there are times when a
disabled child can easily participate in a class without the help of a paraprofessional. If the child
is able to do this, there is no reason to confine him to a separate classroom away from his typical
peers.
Rational Reasons
Rationally, inclusion is a no-brainer because it benefits both disabled and typical students
in a number of ways. This fact in and of itself is a convincing reason to support inclusive
education. Bailey et al. (1998) cite benefits for children with and without disabilities. For
children with disabilities, inclusion provides a more challenging learning environment. It is less
likely that teachers will assume a disabled student cannot reach higher goals. Children also have
more opportunities to observe and learn from their typical peers, and are exposed to real-life
applications of their skills. An inclusive environment facilitates social responses. Inclusion
benefits children without disabilities by helping them learn about differences in people. This
leads to a greater acceptance of people with disabilities and of their own strengths and
weaknesses. These typical students also get the early opportunity to be a role model for behavior.
This has the potential to boost self-esteem by giving these students an important purpose.
As a slight downside, there has been research that suggests that typical students can be
more distracted in the presence of disabled peers (Jellison 2002). This seems to be dependent on
the proximity to the disabled student and the severity of the disability, but fortunately, some
typical students do not follow this trend. It may be a matter of finding the right students to place
next to a more severely disabled student. Either way, the long-term advantages the disabled
students experience through inclusion are much greater than these short-term disadvantages
experienced by typical students. In addition, the advantages of inclusion for typical students
seem to outweigh the disadvantages.
It is also rational to support inclusive education because there is so much empirical
evidence to back it up. The empirical foundations for inclusion provide scientific evidence that
support its philosophy. Research on preschoolers shows strong evidence supporting inclusion on
the basis of its benefits to social development. The evidence in research at the preschool age also
shows that inclusion does not hinder the development of the students without disabilities.
According to Bailey et al. (1998), there is little scientific evidence suggesting that exclusive
programs provide better education for disabled children at this age. So, rationally speaking, it
makes sense to put these children in an inclusion program.
The empirical research conducted by Waldron & McKlesky (1998), is quite compelling.
Their research demonstrates a clear academic benefit to learning in an inclusive environment.
Students with mild learning disabilities in inclusion made significantly more progress in reading
and comparable progress in math compared to students with mild learning disabilities in non-
inclusive settings. In addition, significantly more students with mild learning disabilities in
inclusion made progress in reading that was comparable to their typical peers than students with
mild learning disabilities in non-inclusive settings. They also found that students with severe
learning disabilities made comparable progress in reading and math; the setting did not matter.
The implications of this last finding are that if the setting does not have an effect, these students
should be placed in inclusive classrooms because this would be the least restrictive of the
possible environments. Not only is inclusion the better choice here because it is the least
restrictive environment, it is also because inclusion is an environment that will still provide these

5. more severely disabled students with social and behavioral benefits outside of the realm of
academics.
Teachers’ Attitudes
General education teachers’ attitudes toward special education in general, their attitudes
toward the included students in the classroom, and their acceptance of inclusive practices are
important pieces to the puzzle that is a successful inclusive education program. There is research
demonstrating the effect teachers have on included students with mild and severe disabilities
(Cook, 2001; Cameron & Cook, 2013). Cook (2001) showed that teachers’ attitudes toward
disabled students could put these students at risk for receiving inappropriate education.
Frequently, teachers make assumptions about the students based on the severity of their
disabilities. For example, a teacher may pay less attention to a student because he or she feels ill
equipped to attend to this student’s needs. In this case, it appears that it is not the teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion as a concept, but instead the teachers’ attitudes toward included
students and their needs, that shape their opinions on educational opportunities.
Cameron & Cook (2013) later showed that general education teachers’ goals and
expectations for their included students affect how they choose to educate them. In this more
recent case, it now appears that teachers’ acceptance of inclusion is based on social cognitive
theory and the construct of self-efficacy. Teacher efficacy regarding inclusion demonstrates that
teachers who feel they are good at teaching students with disabilities are more likely to include
these students in their classroom. These teachers also change their expectations of students based
on the obviousness of their disabilities. Studies have shown that some teachers set goals that are
too low for students with severe disabilities, and set goals that are too high for students with mild
disabilities.
Successful inclusion settings need teachers with the right mindset. Perhaps if these
teachers were to receive even a portion of the training required for paraprofessionals, they would
feel more confident in their abilities to provide educational opportunities, and not just social
opportunities, for their included students. In a study by Marks et al. (1999), it was found that
paraprofessionals work to manage the academic needs, sometimes accompanied by behavioral
needs, of developmentally disabled students. For paraprofessionals, sometimes meeting the
needs of the students conflicts with meeting the needs of the general education teachers. If
teachers and paraprofessionals received some of the same training regarding inclusion students,
this conflict could be discarded; teachers could realize paraprofessionals are there to help.
The Debate Continues
Even after all the empirical evidence put forth in the last 15 years, the inclusive education
debate has continued. This is mostly due to the fact that misconceptions inform the public’s idea
of inclusion. Many people, including many parents, teachers, and administrators, have only seen
faulty inclusion programs. And as some researchers have cited, when faced with the choice
between a low-quality or misinformed inclusion school and a high-quality exclusion school,
parents will choose the exclusive environment (Bailey et al. 1998)—and they should! They posit
that the reason inclusive settings are avoided is perhaps because these programs often fall short
of standards held by professionals and parents. These standards include “competing values” such
as high-quality programs, specialized services, and family-centered practices. Sometimes, it is
hard to find inclusion and these values within the same program. In most situations, the option
providing the higher quality will be the better choice. The problem here is not the philosophy of

6. inclusion, but the way programs implement it. In addition, as is often an underlying, but
significant factor, funding and the availability of resources is an issue for growing programs.
These are necessary for success.
A Possible Solution
If we could reorganize all lacking inclusive programs, there would be no argument
against inclusive settings. Solutions and modifications for programs having difficulty taking
steps toward a more inclusive environment may include: (a) smaller class sizes in order to
provide appropriate amounts of individual attention to each student, (b) the addition of a co-
teacher (possibly one specializing in special education) to provide assistance and support to the
regular education teachers in the classroom, (c) retraining teachers and paraprofessionals about
the needs of all students, (d) education of all staff as to what is expected of them so that the new
inclusion program is a success, (e) enforcing changes to the program and the acceptance and
inclusion of all students, and (f) focusing on the need for cooperation to ensure the inclusion
program’s success, among a myriad of other directions that could be taken.
It takes the cooperation of many, but in time, inclusion can be correctly and successfully
implemented. If administrators, educators, and parents learn what inclusion is, they can give
children the education they deserve.

7. References
Angelides, P., & Aravi, C. (2007). A Comparative Perspective on the Experiences of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Individuals as Students at Mainstream and Special Schools. American
Annals of the Deaf, 151(5), 476-487.
Bailey, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. W. (1998). Inclusion in the Context
of Competing Values in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 13(1), 27-47.
Cameron, D. L., & Cook, B. G. (2013). General Education Teachers’ Goals and Expectations for
their Included Students with Mild and Severe Disabilities. Education and Training in
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 18-30.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A Comparison of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Their Included Students with
Mild and Severe Disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203-213.
Jellison, J. A. (2002). On-Task Participation of Typical Students Close to and Away from
Classmates with Disabilities in an Elementary Music Classroom. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 50(4), 343-355.
Kauffman, J. M., Landrum, T. J., Mock, D. R., Sayeski, B., & Sayeski, K. L. (2005). Diverse
Knowledge and Skills Require a Diversity of Instructional Groups: A Position Statement.
Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 2-6.
Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2000). Enhancing Social Skills of Kindergarten Children with
Autism Through the Training of Multiple Peers as Tutors. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 183-193.
Marks, S. U., Schrader, C., & Levine, M. (1999). Paraeducator experiences in inclusive settings:
helping, hovering, or holding their own? Exceptional Children, 65(3), 315-328.
Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils’ Views on Inclusion: Moderate Learning Difficulties
and Bullying in Mainstream and Special Schools. British Educational Research Journal,
30(1), 43-65.
Waldron, N. L., & McKlesky, J. (1998). The Effects of an Inclusive School Program on Students
with Mild and Severe Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(3), 395-405.