Pros and Cons of Inclusive Education in Schools

Introduction

The American Dream is rooted in equality — the idea that everyone should be given an equal chance for success. If every citizen has the opportunity to receive a quality education, each citizen has the ability to achieve. According to the White House, education has always been a fundamental part of achieving the American Dream; an educated citizen is more likely to hold a good job, escape poverty, own a home, start a business, remain free from crime, and participate in America's democracy. In the past few decades, debates surrounding inclusion in education and the education of students with disabilities have emerged as a significant issue, raising concern among disabled children, teachers, and those serving on educational boards.

Inclusion is a term that expresses a commitment to educate each child, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise attend. It involves bringing support services to the child rather than moving the child to the services, and requires only that the child will benefit from being in the class — not that the child must keep up with the other students.

Reasons Behind the Debate

Proponents of inclusion generally favor newer forms of educational service delivery and argue that the child should always begin in the regular environment, being removed only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the regular classroom. Opponents of inclusion argue against it on the grounds that the regular class must be restructured for the child, requiring adaptations to materials, curriculum, and expectations for individual students. This paper discusses the reasons behind the debate regarding inclusive education, as well as the pros and cons of the controversial issue of inclusion in education. It concludes with a brief summary and potential recommendations for future action in this area.

According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (2007), inclusion remains a controversial concept in education because it relates to educational and social values, as well as to our sense of individual worth. In analyzing both sides of this debate, questions must be raised about whether all children are valued equally, and whether there are some children for whom inclusion is inappropriate. In examining the pros and cons of inclusion, the concept of mainstreaming — the selective placement of special education students in one or more regular education classes — must also be taken into consideration.

Laws for the Education of Disabled Children

Proponents of mainstreaming generally assume that a student must earn the opportunity to be placed in regular classes by demonstrating an ability to keep up with the work assigned by the regular classroom teacher (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). Those who support equal education for all stress that children should be given the equal right to receive the same type of education. Between these two extremes are large groups of educators and parents who are confused by the concept itself; they wonder whether inclusion is legally required, what is truly best for the child, and what schools must do to meet the needs of children with disabilities (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007).

Several laws have been enacted to guarantee that disabled children receive the same quality education as those without disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the main federal program authorizing state and local aid for children with disabilities. The purpose of IDEA is "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living" (Frishman, 2007). In December 2004, a new law called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act was signed, making significant changes to the education of disabled children. These changes include new provisions regarding how schools determine whether a child may receive special education services.

Another law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, provides fewer protections than IDEA. Section 504 protects individuals from discrimination and entitles children with disabilities that limit a major life activity — such as learning — to a free appropriate public education designed to meet their individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of non-disabled children are met.

Pros of Inclusion

Section 504 is arguably the law that provides the broadest coverage for children with disabilities, because it affirms that all students with a disability have the right to a free public education by law. This includes special education and related services that are: (a) provided in an Individualized Education Program (IEP); (b) designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability; (c) aligned with state standards; and (d) provided at public expense (Frishman, 2007). This law has also been the subject of some controversy, however, because it provides for learning in the least restrictive environment. This means that children with disabilities should be educated alongside children without disabilities, and that placement in special classes or removal from the regular education setting occurs only when the disability is so severe that satisfactory education cannot be achieved in regular classes — even with supplementary supports. Section 504 also states that the special education setting must be as close as possible to the student's local school (Frishman, 2007). An analysis of Section 504 therefore indicates that it lends support to both sides of the inclusion debate.

Proponents of inclusion generally believe that all students belong in the regular education classroom and that effective teachers are those who can meet the needs of all students, regardless of what those needs may be. Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, will be in a regular classroom or program full time, and that all services must be brought to the child in that setting. A majority of the research also sides with advocates of inclusion, arguing that inclusion supports the social needs and growth of children with disabilities. Children's social skills relate to both the quality and success of their school experiences (Meisels et al., 1996). Young children construct knowledge by interacting with others and their environment (Bandura, 1986). In order to interact successfully in a variety of circumstances and with a variety of people, children need to possess strong interpersonal skills — they need to feel secure enough to join, question, and listen to their peers and adults. Other researchers examining outcomes in children randomly assigned to Head Start and a program wait list found that, when comparing health, social skills, cognitive skills, and language skills, social functioning was not as strongly related to successful academic outcomes as were other indicators such as phonemic awareness, receptive vocabulary, and general health.

Proponents of inclusion also point to studies that consistently report little or no benefit for students placed in special education settings. Research by Weiner (1985) analyzed 50 studies comparing the academic performance of mainstreamed and segregated students with mild handicapping conditions. Weiner's results indicated that the mean academic performance of the integrated group was at the 80th percentile, while the segregated students scored at the 50th percentile. This conclusion supports the theory that segregated programs are detrimental to students and do not meet the original goals of special education. Additionally, another study confirmed a small to moderate beneficial effect of inclusive education on the academic and social outcomes of students with special needs (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980). Assessing inclusion from a cost-benefit perspective, Affleck, Madge, Adams, and Lowenbraun (1988) demonstrated that the integrated classroom for students with special needs was more cost-effective than the resource room model, even though achievement in reading, math, and language remained essentially the same across the two service delivery models.

Another study supporting inclusion, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, measured student achievement in the Success for All programs. A control group was compared with students enrolled in Success for All programs, using measures of language proficiency, reading difficulty, and student retention and attendance at the first-, second-, and third-grade levels. Students identified with exceptional education needs were included in all comparisons (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). While assessments showed improved reading performance for all students, the most dramatic improvements occurred among the lowest achievers. The research also found the best results in schools with the highest level of funding, concluding that when resources are available to provide supplementary aids, all children perform better (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). This study suggests that as long as adequate funding supports inclusive classrooms, students with disabilities achieve stronger academic outcomes. Proponents of inclusion therefore have a well-substantiated position, supported by a range of research studies.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Future recommendations for equality in education have been widely discussed in the literature. The majority of research in this area generally agrees that a continuum of placements, supports, and services should be made available for all students, while always assuming that every student's first placement is in regular education. According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council (2007), all school placement decisions for a disabled child should be based on a well-developed program with an emphasis on the needs of the child, his or her peers, and the reasonable provision of services. Before any new programs are developed, the building staff must agree on a clearly articulated philosophy of education (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). Teachers and support staff must be fully involved in the decision-making, planning, and evaluation processes for individual students and school-wide programs. Extensive professional development must be made available as part of every teacher's and disabled student assistant's workday. Areas of emphasis include higher-order thinking skills, integrated curricula, interdisciplinary teaching, multicultural curricula, and life-centered curricula (Wisconsin Education Association Council, 2007). As long as these recommendations are implemented within the educational system, the needs of both sides of the debate should be addressed successfully.