With the increasing numbers of individuals with disabilities in the school system, the controversy over the best way to support them has arose. When speaking to a professional in the field of special education, the idea of full inclusion is as divisive a topic as are current election-year topics of discussion. It is seen by some as not only a question of educational placement but of social value and individual worth. Others question it’s legality altogether. This paper examines the definition of full inclusion and directly relates it to the disciplines exemplified by Peter M. Senge in The Fifth Discipline (2006). Further, this paper will discuss the responsibility and practicality of such an educational movement.
For the purpose of this paper, full inclusion means that all students, regardless of disabling condition or severity, will be in a general education classroom full time. All external services will be taken to the child in that setting (‘Special Education Inclusion’, 2014). External services include but are not limited to occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech and language services as well as counseling. This complex issue becomes even more perplexing once it’s observed that there are multiple terminologies being used to describe the same idea. Full inclusion, full integration, unified system, and inclusive education are all terms that have been used to describe this practice in which all students with disabilities receive their total education within the regular education classroom in their home school.
In understanding the current special education placement reforms, we must first look back at the evolution of American special education inclusion. Prior to the Rehabilitation act of 1973 and its amendments of 1986 and 1992, the educational rights of people with disabilities were not guaranteed. Following that legislation, institutions receiving federal funding were required to honor those rights (‘A Guide to Disabilities Rights Laws’, 2009). Public Law 94-142, originally passed by congress in 1975, required that an education be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for each child (‘Learning Disabilities Association of America ”, 2012). The precedent for inclusive education was set in the LRE clause of Public Law 94-142. The most recent version of this law, known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was enacted in 2004. Public Law 94-142 was the first time in legislation and learning, that people started to discuss the appropriateness of educational placement as it pertains to special education students.
“What happens when a 4th grade teacher with a class of 30 or 35 finds that several new students have severe behavioral disabilities? The teacher has no previous training in working with disabled children, and the principal says that getting any extra classroom help is out the question—the school district simply can’t afford it” (Shanker, 1995). The aforementioned situation is unfortunately a reality in many schools today. Having worked in the field of education for nearly fifteen years, specifically special education, I believe that full inclusions is not the proper placement for many types of students. If one were to paint a perfect picture of a fully inclusive setting there would be a general education and special education teacher working side by side. Related service providers would be seamlessly weaved into the classroom without instructional disruption. An extremely generous district budget would be available to the program to ensure all needs were meant for all students.
Once you start to chip away at the corners of that perfect picture of full inclusion you will see its flaws. Some children with extreme physical, medical and emotional needs, will at times, create classroom disturbances out of their control. This not only disrupts the instructional delivery of the teacher but jostles the concentration of other students. These types of involuntary episodes are functions of their disabilities and create a further divide in the classroom, a sense of difference goes on display. Students with learning disabilities often get heightened anxiety when placed with their general education peers. This is often times due to a lag in their rate of response, a lower than grade level reading level and a lack of confidence in response to the rigor of the general education classroom.
Many proponents of the full inclusion movement refute the opinion of myself and many others by citing the lack of fully inclusive environments as direct violations of students’ civil rights. They believe that, “Too often, separateness and exclusion can define the educational experience, particularly for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” (Vandercook et al, 2018).
