Educationally speaking, exclusion is not the opposite of inclusion

It is required by law that all students with disabilities receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Some education and legal experts believe that this legislation means we must provide full inclusion into the regular education classroom for all students.  Proponents argue that full inclusion benefits all parties by increasing the visibility of students with disabilities and by offering students with disabilities access to the full curriculum. They contend that “children who can’t comprehend many of the essential elements of a lesson might still receive great benefit from their nondisabled peers, who serve as language and behavior models” and that “the biggest benefit will come when disabled students feel they ‘belong’ with the regular-education children, rather than being segregated in separate classes or separate schools” (Arnold and Dodge, Agne).  These arguments insinuate that anyone who is against full inclusion for all students is morally reprehensible and does not have the best interests of children at heart, when in fact the opposite is true.  Let us not forget the requirement of an “appropriate” education. Students with disabilities need an individualized education plan that is unique to their strengths and weaknesses, and this simply cannot be accomplished through a one sized fits all approach of full inclusion for every student.

    There are a wide variety of students with disabilities who are educated by our system and covered by an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is completed on an annual basis.  This includes students from high incidence populations, such as those with Learning Disabilities (LD), Speech and Language Impairment (SLI), Mild-Moderate Cognitive Impairment (MoCI) and Emotional Impairment (EI) as well as students from low incidence populations, such as those with Autism Impairment (AI), Severe Cognitive Impairment (SCI), Visual Impairment (VI), Hearing Impaired (HI) and also those who are Severely, Multiple Impaired (SXI).  There are several factors that are considered when developing an annual IEP and, consequently, when making choices regarding educational programming for these students. The IEP team must consider first and foremost five factors: 1) the communication needs of a student, 2) the need for assistive technology, 3) the English proficiency of a student, 4) the students’ visual skills and 5) behavioral supports. Then, they must consider which related services (e.g., Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Teacher Consultant services, Social Work Services, etc.) and which educational programs (e.g., Resource Room or other programming) are needed to support the student’s ability to access the general education curriculum. Finally, the IEP team must consider to what extent the student will be included with students who are nondisabled.  When considering placement, case law recommends that schools consider not only the educational and non-educational benefit to the student with a disability, but also the possible negative effects on the other students in the fully-included classroom. Let us delve further into the muddy waters by walking through some placement decisions for students with a variety of disabilities.

    Student A is eligible for special education as a student with a Learning Disability in the area of math calculation. English is her first language. Her language comprehension and expression skills fall within normal limits for her age range, as do her visual and hearing acuity. She will benefit from Assistive Technology through the use of a graphing calculator in math class to compensate for her difficulties with performing basic calculations and allow her to keep pace with the class. She does not exhibit behaviors that interfere with her learning. She will also need Resource Room or Teacher Consultant support to provide intensive instruction in order to remediate those calculation skills. The educational benefits to placing Student A in the regular education classroom at full inclusion are numerous and there are no possible scenarios in which her presence would cause harm to the other students in the classroom. Her regular education teacher and special education teacher will need to work together on lessons in order to ensure that Student A receives adequate instruction to support her learning (see http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/examples for suggestions regarding curriculum design and lesson planning in the spirit of inclusion). This may also involve extra training for the regular education teacher and extra time on both teachers’ parts, but this is not a reason to reject inclusion as an option. For Student A, full inclusion would be highly beneficial.

Let us now consider Student B, who is eligible for special education as a student with an Autism Impairment. English is his first language. However, due to the inherent language difficulties present with Autism, his receptive language is delayed and he does not use verbal speech to communicate. He will need the support of Assistive Technology in the form of a Voice Output Communication Device (VOCA) to communicate in school. He exhibits constant sensory seeking behaviors in the form of flapping his hands and rocking. He also demonstrates violent behaviors in situations where his sensory system is overwhelmed by too much noise, and has previously hit several teachers. Currently, he is performing 4 grade levels behind in reading, and is performing 3 grade levels behind in math. He will need the support of Speech and Language Therapy to address communication, Occupational Therapy to address sensory needs and intensive Resource Room support to provide remediation of reading skills, math skills and to support comprehension in the content areas.  Inclusion would benefit Student B by providing models for social skills and behavior; however, he will not receive much academic benefit due to the differences in his cognitive and language skills. Possible harm exists for other students in the school if Student B becomes over stimulated and demonstrates violent behaviors. It is likely that Student B will benefit from a more structured classroom environment with fewer students and highly trained staff to better support his behavior, academic and communication needs. When Student B becomes more proficient in his communication skills and decreases his violent behaviors, he may benefit from inclusion during non-academic times, such as gym, to support his social development.

    The above examples serve to illustrate that educational placement is not something to be taken lightly, but it is also not something that can be accomplished with one approach. Federal legislation requires that a Free and Appropriate Public Education be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment possible for the student. This means that each student must be approached individually and decisions can only be made on a case-by-case basis. To assert that all students can be educated appropriately through full inclusion in the regular classroom is not realistic. There are many recent news articles regarding both the positive and negative aspects of inclusion. Students with disabilities need individualized placement that is tailored to support their own unique strengths and weaknesses. This may be accomplished through full or partial inclusion, or by programming in a specialized classroom. It is just not possible to make one recommendation for all students.

Sources

Arnold and Dodge, Ange, ‘Is Full Inclusion of Disabled Students Desirable?’ from Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues (11th ed.) J.W. Noll (ed.), pp. 242-255 (New York: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill). [13]

http://www.wikipedia.org

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/promise_of_udl/what_l-i_d

http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/meetings/special-factors

http://csl.sog.unc.edu/node/977

http://www.udlcenter.org/implementation/examples

http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/autism-no-barrier-to-young-ballplayers/article_4263c85e-1df5-11e2-af9c-0019bb2963f4.html

http://www.care2.com/causes/inclusion-a-great-idea-that-doesnt-always-work.html