“I

nclusion isn’t a new program or something one ‘does’ to or for someone else. It is a deeply rooted spiritual concept that one lives. It is not a trendy product or fad to be discarded. It is not a new label – ‘the inclusion kids’. It is not a bandwagon. People are either included or excluded. One cannot be a little bit pregnant or a little bit included (like the myth of ‘inclusive’ recess or lunch). One is either ‘in’ or ‘out’. One either belongs or doesn’t belong. If we exclude people, we are programming them for the fight of their lives – to get in and belong.”

Marsha Forest and Jack Pearpoint, 1999

When Did This Happen?

The passage of Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142) in 1975 signaled a commitment to make sure every child in America, regardless of his or her disability, received a free and appropriate public education. As part of this commitment, guidelines were provided as to where and how those supports necessary for each child to succeed might be made available. Federal law states that public schools must provide a “continuum of alternative placements to meet the needs of handicapped children for special education and related services.” This continuum must include at least “instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.” Placement in less restrictive environments with the provision of “special aids and services” must be attempted and documented before placement in more restrictive environments can be implemented.

Regardless of this commitment, schools found themselves ill prepared to actually follow the guidelines of the provision of services and the least restrictive environment. For many reasons (including lack of experience in such service delivery, lack of research base of effective instructional practices, and lack of knowledge of support strategies), many students were unsuccessful in the more inclusive end of the continuum. Some students were placed appropriately but supports were either not provided, not appropriate, or not provided effectively. Other students, because of the initial perception precipitated by their multiple and severe disabilities, were not given the opportunities promised by LRE and the continuum of services.

For the first group of students, more experience and knowledge gained by the educational community facilitated the LRE and continuum provision to become more aligned with the original intent stated in 94-142. “Mainstreaming” entered the common, educational lexicon, defined as “letting” students with disabilities be educated in general education classes for which they do not need special supports and can therefore, keep up in the “mainstream” (NASBE, 1992; Ferguson et al., 2000; Harrison, 1998).

But for the second group of students, a different approach developed. As a result of the inexperience noted previously, preconceived notions of what it means to be disabled, and a certain degree of prejudice, it was inconceivable that these students might be educated with their typical peers and certainly not on the same curriculum, resulting in a different system or “second system” of education (Wang, 1988). As the deleterious effects of this unspoken policy of social isolation began to be realized, a more integrated approach to education of students with severe disabilities took shape – one of integration. This integrated approach found students with severe disabilities primarily placed in classes such as art, physical education, music, etc. and other school activities (e.g. lunch, recess, and parties) where their educational focus was on, not content, but socialization. The hope was that, the “second system” of education would be preserved while, at the same time, providing some opportunities for social experience and learning. This intermittent approach to educational membership didn’t work. Students with disabilities were still seen as different and ‘not-part-of’ (Hilton & Liberty, 1992; Schnorr, 1990).

The early 1990’s saw more emphasis placed upon the importance of full time placement in the hopes that this would improve not only the membership status of students with disabilities but their performance, too, “based on the premise that the most effective instruction is provided when it is grounded in the general education curriculum and delivered, to the maximum extent possible, in the general education classroom” (from Roach, 1999 as cited in Fisher et al, 2002). This full time membership took the name of “inclusion.” Inclusion has been defined as “being with and learning to live with one another” (Forest & Pearpoint, 2001).

Unfortunately, inclusion is still not the reality for most students with disabilities, especially students with severe disabilities. LRE is often misinterpreted, not followed as to the provision of required supports, and is not instituted according to the continuum hierarchy as defined as least restrictive placement first (Fryxell & Kennedy, (1995); Taylor, 1988; Weick & Strully, 1991). This is evidenced by continued segregated placements of 5 year-olds.

Hopefully, the beginning of the 21^st century will also be the beginning of fair, moral, and equitable treatment of all people. This can only happen as we realize and truly value the uniqueness of each individual. School is a place to start.

Why We Do It:

There are 2 main reasons why inclusion is considered to be an exemplary practice. One is moral and one is pragmatic. The moral reason is based upon individual rights and the need to belong. The other is based upon meaningful learning experiences. Rather than being mutually exclusive, as is often heard from opponents of inclusion, they are complementary and are, in fact, inexorably connected. Truly inclusive schools exhibit a dedication to both (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Lunt & Norwich, 1999; Stainback & Stainback, 1996).

As a society, we often say we celebrate diversity and value individuals for their unique strengths and talents. Yet a child with a disability asking for the opportunity to attend a general education class arouses such extremes of emotion that it is hard to believe in the truth of those statements. Lewis Jackson (no date) says, “Just as with institutional placements of earlier decades, expressed concerns for assuring that ‘the best and most intensive services available’ are provided to ‘those students’ can also mask attitudes and perceptions that are laced with prejudice and malice.”

Abraham Maslow’s theory of a hierarchy of needs in which lower order needs must be met before higher order needs can be filled informs us that the need to belong (love need) must be satisfied before one can seek knowledge (self-actualization). It is inherently wrong to deny the opportunity to belong to a group of individuals and then blame them for not learning as much or as quickly as we think they should. It is necessary for schools to be about learning but they must also be about caring and belonging (Kunc, 1992).

The combined issues of social belonging, social skills, and friendships have been the primary catalysts for moving to more inclusive practices and we have learned what it takes in order for those issues to be positively facilitated. Friendships don’t just happen. We know that people need to share time and space in order for relationships to develop (Hartup, 1996). Dymond and Russell (2004) studied an inclusive elementary school as part of a larger evaluation and made some interesting observations. Within general education classrooms, students with disabilities spent 98% of their time seated with peers without identified disabilities. Also, regardless of disability level, students were observed to be “actively engaged in learning during the majority of their day (68%)…No students were observed with their head down or asleep, and disruptive behavior in the classroom was minimal” (pg. 135).

Shannon’s Story

Coming from a program that was a segregated class with some integration in a regular public school, Shannon had moved into a neighborhood where the middle school highly valued inclusive placement and was now expected to be part of fully included 7th grade classes. In his previous, segregated program, Shannon exhibited some fairly disruptive, inappropriate behaviors including cursing, out-of-seat, refusal to work, behavior outbursts that included throwing desks, etc.

Knowing his past history was a concern but after much deliberation, it was decided to follow the requirements of PL 94-142 regarding LRE and begin with a fully inclusive placement, providing supports as needed. As Shannon was fairly shy initially, the first few days went without incident. His special and general education teachers frequently collaborated informally with the only “problem” expressed by the 7th grade team being cursing (that did not seem to be a “voluntary” rule violation but rather part of Shannon’s documented disability and part of his language). When questioned as to whether or not this was a problem for other students, the general education teachers said it had not been so far. Most of them had spoken with the other students and most of their families and no one had, as of yet, voiced any further concern. They assured the special education teacher that the other students knew they were not to model Shannon in that respect!

After the first couple of weeks, the special education teacher saw some naturally occurring opportunities where Shannon might be pulled out of class (during tests) to do some concentrated skill work as he was not being tested on content acquisition. Shannon decided that wasn’t such a good idea and refused to leave. He preferred to stay at his desk, “write” on his notebook paper, sigh, wipe his brow and exhibit all the other test taking behaviors he observed from his classmates. Shannon had made himself indistinguishable from all the 7th graders in almost all aspects of behavior. He had learned behavior skills all students use in order to be perceived as on task and confident – a lesson that is hard to teach but important in all of our daily lives.

Buysse, Goldman, and Skinner (2002), studying the development of friendships of children both with and without disabilities, made several important findings. Two types of settings were studied – one specialized (the majority of children had disabilities but some did not) and one typical (the majority of children did not have identified disabilities but some did). It was found that the same probability of developing friendships was the same regardless of setting for the children without disabilities. However, children with disabilities in typical settings were almost 2 times as likely to have friends as their counterparts in specialized settings. The implications for “reverse integration” (specialized settings in which small numbers of peers without disabilities are brought in) are clear. “The opportunities for children with disabilities to participate in a variety of classroom activities with their typically developing peers (is) a precursor to finding suitable playmates and forming friendships” (pg. 515). Hendrickson et al (1996) found that middle and high school students felt that fulltime inclusion was the best way for them to develop friendships with students with disabilities.

Christy’s story

In the early 1990’s, Christy was a 9 year old student in one of the first units of students with severe and multiple disabilities to move from a segregated school into a regular public elementary school. The unit was designed to be essentially a segregated class room with high degrees of integration (a range of 30 to 50% of specific students’ days – generally based upon academic ability). Because of the severity of her disabilities, Christy was involved primarily in only art, music, physical education, recess, and lunch.

About 4 of her 4^th grade, general education classmates became a fairly consistent group who pushed her around the playground at recess, made sure there was enough room for her wheelchair at the lunch table, and hand-over-hand assisting her with art projects. With little formal training or modeling by Christy’s special education support staff, these 4 little girls treated Christy as they would any other 4^th grader, teasing her unmercifully about boys during recess, getting mad when she rejected their attempts at physical guidance while in art, and encouraging her to hurry up and finish eating so the adult feeding her would leave the lunch table and they could talk about whatever it is 9 year old girls talk about.

This relationship among the 5 girls continued through the 5th grade and even went so far as to involve weekend sleep-overs (usually at Christy’s but sometimes not). Then middle school happened, with all its scheduling, puberty, and peer pressure problems. However, Christy’s group of friends changed. Two of the original girls remain steady, one still was involved but only occasionally, and one girl changed groups. But another student who, having attended a different elementary school, had not known Christy previously became a consistent member of the group.

At that time, access to the general curriculum was not even a thought when it came to students like Christy, but because of some accessibility solutions and at the urging of her friends and mother, Christy had begun to be included in a few more classes throughout 6^th, 7^th, and 8^th grades. One of those was an 8^th grade general education Life Skills class. As a project in that class, students worked in groups to discover how much adult life really costs with rent, food, utilities, entertainment, etc.

Students self-chose their own groups so, of course, Christy was part of the group consisting of her and her 3 friends. When the final projects were submitted, this group’s work shocked all of the adults (but none of the students!). Christy’s group had planned apartment living for all 4 of them. They had addressed issues of accessibility not only in life space (a single floor plan with no steps) but transportation (an accessible van) and coverage (a home health worker) in case Christy couldn’t or didn’t want to go with them somewhere.

This scenario would have never happened for Christy had it not been for those girls to have shared time and space, critical issues in the development of any friendships. Did this same relationship happen for every student in Christy’s original special education unit? No. However, it wouldn’t have happened for Christy if adults in power had not put aside their own prejudices and provided those opportunities through integrated classes. What a disservice to Christy and her friends!

The pragmatic reasons for inclusion center on student achievement. The more recent emphasis on general curriculum access and progress is shifting focus of inclusion to the efficacy of the learning environment. Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde (1993) defined, through common recommendations of national curriculum reports, what schools need less of and what they need more of. While all of the recommendations demonstrate improved instruction for all students (Appendix A), there are some that have particular appeal to more inclusive practices:

· LESS tracking or leveling students into “ability groups”

· LESS use of pull-out special programs

· MORE enacting and modeling of the principles, of democracy in school

· MORE attention to affective needs and the varying cognitive styles of individual students

· MORE cooperative, collaborative activity; developing the classroom as an interdependent community

· MORE heterogeneously grouped classrooms where individual needs are met through inherently individualized activities, not segregation of bodies

· MORE delivery of special help to students in regular classrooms

School reform legislation places increased importance on achievement of all students on challenging, academic standards related to grade level appropriate content area curriculum (IDEA, 1997; NCLB, 2002). If students with disabilities continue to be placed in segregated classrooms (or in inclusive classrooms without the proper supports), their lower achievement (AYPF & CEP, pg.28 as cited in Stodden et al, 2003) on content area standards is to be expected.

The place to learn content area curriculum is the content area classroom.

To these authors, this means full participation in all classroom instruction and activities. Typically, students with severe disabilities, when included at all in content area classes, participate in only those activities presumed to be “meaningful” for them. This participation is usually in more experiential, hands-on instructional activities and not lecture, research, etc. and is based on preconceived notions about their capacity for learning. The more complex or abstract the concepts are, the less time spent in general class. This could account for the decreasing amount of inclusion in high school settings as compared to elementary schools (Fisher et al, (1999). We have seen that students who participate in general education classes learn more than was ever expected. It is logical to surmise that the more time spent learning about concepts, the more learning will occur. These authors recommend that we find ways of making all instruction on all concepts meaningful to students with severe disabilities. It is wrong to blame students for lack of learning (and the resulting segregation from classes and instructional activities) when instruction on core curriculum has been incomplete or substandard, as has been found to be the case by Stodden, Jones, and Chang (2002) as cited in Stodden, Galloway, and Stodden (2003).

Sammy’s story

Sammy was the first student with autism to be fully included in his neighborhood school as a 4^th grader. He experienced a great deal of difficulty with social relationships and interactions so part of his IEP was geared toward developing those skills by engaging in turn taking play activities during recess and gym. His IEP data in this area continued to show no improvement, even with appropriate and multiple adjustments to the program.

However, though not a focus of the IEP, he was acquiring content knowledge in many different subject areas – picking out specific dinosaurs by scientific name, matching key phrases in word problems to their mathematical function signs, and being able to recite the 50 states and their capitol cities. His educational team was happy that he was learning this “splinter” knowledge, but the fact that none of these things appeared to be in any way related to improvement on his IEP goals nor toward the performance of more traditional, “functional” skills caused them a great deal of concern and they continually questioned the appropriateness of the inclusive placement.

Then it happened. One day at recess, after his required 2 minutes of “compulsory fun” consisting of throwing a ball back and forth with a classmate (working toward the IEP goal of increasing interactions through turn taking – not “fun” for Sammy or anyone else!), Sammy was engaging in his real favorite recess activity of walking the perimeter of the playground alone and flapping his hands. As he passed the sandbox where 2 of his classmates were playing, Sammy stopped, turned around, went back to the sandbox, sat down, and began singing the states and capitols song with them! This was his first ever self initiated social interaction and it came as a result of knowledge gained in an inclusive setting that no one could have predicted would be “functional” for him! It is presumptuous of adults to rule out content area knowledge that is important for students without disabilities as unimportant for students with disabilities.

DISCUSSION POINTS:

What Else Does the Research Say?

Besides the previously cited research addressing both moral and pragmatic reasons for inclusive schooling, additional research finds many other interesting benefits and points worth considering. Some of these are:

· Effects on achievement (this is related to pragmatic considerations addressing in the previous section but there are some additional findings) and IEPs

· Effects on students without disabilities

· Effects on attitudes and relationships (again related to previous section but with some additional information)

Effects on Achievement and IEPs

Several studies cited by Moore (2002) address the effects of inclusion on the achievement of students with disabilities. Fishbaugh and Gum (1994) found that students in inclusive schools not only progressed on their IEP goals but sometimes achieved at a staggering level of 2-3 year gains within 1 year. Deno, Maruyama, Espin, and Cohen (1990) studied reading achievement of students with disabilities in inclusive, integrated, and resource classrooms. They found that those students in inclusive classes did better as compared to the other 2 types of settings. Students in integrated placements did no better than those in resource placements. Inclusive and integrated placements facilitated more social success than resource placement. In another study on reading achievement, Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, O’Conner, Jenkins, and Troutner (1992) that all students (both typical and those with IEPs) in inclusive schools demonstrated “significantly superior gains” in reading across the board (p.355) while students served in pull-out programs decreased in achievement scores.

A frequently posited argument by critics of inclusion is that students with disabilities who are educated in inclusive settings will lose out on more traditional functional skill acquisition within domain areas (i.e., self-help, gross and fine motor skills, communication, and adaptive behavior).

Ryan’s story

Ryan began school in an inclusive preschool class and has remained in inclusive settings including 10^th grade so far. He can tell you a little about the book “The Grapes of Wrath” (mostly that he doesn’t like it), he knows that in the Civil War, people fought with guns and swords , he can identify a model of a cell when studying it in class, and he can tell you his school colors. His parents question their intent on inclusive settings with each transition (elementary to middle to high school), mostly at the urging of school personnel. Is he learning what he needs to learn? Is this curriculum functional for him? What they rediscover each time is that, with good programming and some personalized supports, Ryan has developed the functional skills needed to be successful.

When he needed to be toilet trained in first grade, he was. But a book used in the classroom was read to him while spending time in the restroom. He learned to tie his shoes while still learning to read and answer questions in 4^th grade social studies. He learned to follow his schedule, take the correct supplies to classes, and complete a task while in middle school. He learned to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at home but learned to set the oven during consumer science class in 9^th grade. He worked on articulation skills in language arts, science, history, and even in Spanish.

He still talks in 2 to 3 word phrases, but they are about things other teenagers talk about, the football game, tv, their teachers, and driving. He can get things in the grocery for his mom while she is in another part of the store but mostly hangs out by the magazines where the other 15 year olds are. He earns money at home and, like other kids, wants to spend it all on video games, but when forced to will save some. He isn’t ready to enter the work field or live without an adult but he is developing the same skills toward those ends as the other students in his grade. He is also developing the skills to work and live alongside of the other students in his grade. The answer his parents come back to each time is that the inclusive environment, with some individualization, is functional for Ryan.

In the Cole and Meyer study of 1991, it was discovered that not only did students with severe disabilities educated in inclusive classrooms demonstrate academic, social, and behavioral gains, but they exhibited no differences in achievement on more traditional domain areas than students in segregated classes. A surprising and unexpected finding coming from this same study was that “students in segregated sites did not receive a greater concentration of special educational resources than those in integrated settings” (cited in Moore, 2002).

Placement seems to have an effect upon what is included in students’ IEPs. The increased academic focus of IEPs for students in inclusive placements is a step towards the “higher expectations of achievement” called for by NCLB (2002). Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, and Goetz (1994) studied not only social interactions and relationships in both inclusive and segregated classes (inclusive classes were found to be superior in these aspects) but also IEP quality. Their finding of IEPs with more academic objectives in integrated placements prompted them to “suggest that there are important differences in the quality and curricular content of written educational programs for children with disabilities who are full-time members of general education classrooms…” (quoted in Moore, 2002). Additionally, Hunt and Farron-Davis (1992) found IEPs from inclusive settings referred more frequently to best practices than those from segregated settings.

An interesting area that needs more research is the effect of inclusion upon schoolwide discipline and classroom management. Wang et al (1993) found that classroom management is one of the most important factors in student learning. If students are not fully included and general education teachers are not prepared to deal with issues that might arise, classroom management could suffer. Likewise if students are integrated and must transition several times daily, classroom management could suffer, as well (Fisher, Roach, & Frey, 2002, pg. 67). In a recent briefing from State Account for All Students (2004), it was reported that schools which had a higher degree of inclusion of students with disabilities (80% of the school day or more), the discipline rate for all students was significantly lower. This is a promising area for future research.

Effects on Students without Disabilities

Another frequently voiced concern is the fear of negative impact of inclusion on students without disabilities. The concern is that, in an attempt to deliver the general curriculum content in meaningful ways to students with disabilities, the curriculum will be “watered down” and possibly, due to the other needs of students with disabilities, less time will be devoted to curriculum instruction. This is not borne out by any studies to date. In fact, many studies report just the opposite.

Two of the studies referenced in the previous section (Fishbaugh & Gum, 1994; Jenkins et al, 1992), in addition to finding achievement benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities, also found consistent or increased rates of achievement of students without disabilities. Similar findings were reported as a result of studies done by Hunt, Staub, Alwell, and Goetz (1994) and Sharpe, York, and Knight (1994). Findings by Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, and Palombaro (1995) stated that the instructional time spent on curriculum was not compromised by the inclusion of students with severe disabilities.

Effects on Attitudes and Relationships

Many studies document the development of positive attitudes toward, understanding of, and friendships with people with disabilities by students without disabilities who attend fully inclusive classes and schools (Evans, Salisbury, Palumbaro, & Goldberg, 1994; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Hall, 1994; Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994; Stainback, Stainback, Moravec, & Jackson, 1992; Staub, Schwartz, Gallucci, & Peck, 1995). Just as for general education students, inclusive experiences foster better attitudes toward inclusion for administrators, general education teachers, and special education teachers (Butler-Hayes, 1995; Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Phillips, Alfred, Brulli, & Shank, 1990; Rainforth, 1992; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996; York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, & Caughey, 1992).

The attitude of special education teachers has been said to be the single most important factor in the success of inclusive education. General education teachers, regardless of whether they are or are supportive of inclusive education initiatives, will deliver instruction. It is the special education teachers who are responsible for making sure students with disabilities are supported appropriately, receive the adaptations necessary for the content to be meaningful, and are engaged in appropriate relationships with peers. The absence of any one of these characteristics of inclusion can spell failure for a program. Special education teachers who are either less than committed to inclusive practices or who do not have the skills necessary to implement such practices will not be effective in facilitating inclusion. Special education teachers bear the burden of responsibility for making sure inclusive programs are successful.

One Teacher’s Story:

Moving from a segregated school serving students with severe and profound disabilities to a typical middle school was one of the bolder moves in my career. This was scary on two sides, one being that I would now take my students out of the safety of a segregated school and into the real world and second was this real world was a middle school! I remembered middle school all too well and it wasn’t filled with memories of well behaved children and happy teachers. I looked at my students that I was going to take and “what ifs” filled my thoughts: What if Daniel’s pants fell down in the middle of the hall? (They did.) What if Cori wouldn’t go where I asked her to go? (She wouldn’t.) What if Carrie cried in class? (She did.) But with all these thoughts, my strong belief that it was best for the students drove me to face the challenge.

The middle school I moved to in the early 1990s was newly built and held a strong belief in inclusion. “All children can learn, all children belong...” I started with all my students being full members of a team and homebase. Then they came to my self-contained classroom (practice hadn’t caught up with the mission statement!). The district assistant special education director supported the move and urged me to move beyond the typical integration into “electives”, so all of my students were scheduled into at least one core content classes such as social studies, science, language arts, or math, as well.

As each “what if” became a reality and the school survived and as I saw each student learn more than expected, I was motivated to push for a little more. When we got Cori into the class, beginning with the last 5 minutes of language arts, when we made it past her slapping a typical peer, when we made it through her escaping from class, we found out she could read! She was nonverbal with the exception of a few phrases that we had learned meant something unlike the real name, but she could read. I wrote vocabulary words from language arts (e.g., kingdom and asunder) each on an index card and the definition on another. She learned to select the requested word and/or match to the definition for five words in one week! We had never even thought of teaching her to read before! When Carrie reduced her crying in class and began to respond to familiar peers, we began to expect more from her. When Daniel began to interact with peers, we saw some new possibilities. When each “what if” turned into a “wow, look at what they have done!”, my conviction that all students can learn and that all students do belong strengthened. I realized that I could never set limits on students, that I could never, in good conscience, deny them access to learning because I didn’t think they could do it or access to relationships because I didn’t think they cared. I often reflect on inclusion for the students I serve and I always come back to the same answer - “what ifs” too often become “wows” to do it any other way.

However, even the best special education teachers cannot do it alone. Administrators must support inclusive initiatives and general education teachers must, at the very least, not actively resist such endeavors. While it has been found that most administrators and general education teachers agree with inclusion in principle, they express reticence in actually doing it themselves, citing the lack of training, skill, support, and time as barriers to being successful (Engelbrecht, Swart, & Eloff, 2001; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). The Scruggs and Mastropieri study also found the converse to be true – teachers who were confident in their skill level, coupled with positive inclusive experiences, were more positive regarding inclusion. Dymond and Russell (2004) found that when students were included full-time in general education classes, the general education teacher felt primary responsibility; however, when students were included part-time, they viewed the special education teacher as being primarily responsible.

Brett’s story

Because Brett was new to a fully inclusive 5^th grade class, everyone was cautious that his potentially disruptive behavior (leaving his seat and running, loud vocalizations, crying, self stimulatory and self abusive behavior) not adversely affect the other students. Signals indicating when he needed to leave class were developed between his general education teacher and his special education support staff. Within the first few weeks, these signals were never used as the special education staff, erring on the side of caution, quickly escorted Brett from the room at the first sign of any potential problem.

Almost from Day 1, Language Arts block seemed to be a catalyst for Brett’s behavior. At first, he exhibited those behaviors after opening his book, then the sight of his book, and finally progressing to seeing the symbol for Language Arts on his daily schedule. This progression of behavior resulted in Brett being pulled increasingly more often and for longer periods of time. Finally, his general education teacher (who was not supportive of his inclusive placement) said to the support staff, “Look, if he’s in my class, he’s going to be in my class. I don’t want him pulled out at all. If he gets upset, we’ll just deal with it.”

After the first week of remaining in class (this was not a pleasant week!), Brett’s behavior began to change. After a few minutes of highly “unusual” behavior, he calmed down. Through observations and some experimentation with adaptations, it was discovered that Brett’s behavior was not being exhibited because he hated or was frustrated during Language Arts but that he loved Language Arts and he, at some point, had taught himself to read (never an IEP goal)! The “few minutes” became shorter and shorter as Brett realized none of the adults was going to make him leave after he showed his “enthusiasm.” Sometimes because of our low expectations we incorrectly perceive students’ abilities and interests.

There is a body of research that speaks to negative or unsuccessful inclusive education experiences. However, in comparison to the research that supports inclusion, the number is so small as to be considered insignificant. The research that speaks adversely regarding inclusion follows:

• Baines, Baines, and Masterson (1994) report unsuccessful attempts at inclusion. However, these effects can be attributed to students being placed in regular classrooms without the provision of proper supports.
• Zigmond and Baker (1995) describe students being “included” in general education classrooms but not receiving the special education services deemed appropriate for them.
• Cole, Mills, Dale, and Jenkins (1991), Holohan and Costenbader (2000), and Mills, Cole, Jenkins, and Dale (1998) all conducted studies which found that developmental outcomes for children in integrated versus segregated were either comparable or in the favor of the segregated settings. “In each case, however, the effect size was relatively small, with pretest scores accounting for substantially greater variance in posttest scores than type of placement” (as cited in Rafferty et al, 2003, pg.469).

We have presented the research that substantiates the fact that inclusion works on several levels, not just for students with disabilities, but other students, special and general education teachers, and schools. We know it works. So why don’t we do it? These authors believe the main reason is preconceived notions about the inherent capacity for learning of students with severe disabilities and a not-so-well-camouflaged marginalization of people with disabilities.

It is interesting to note that whether or not a student is included seems not to be actually based upon his/her individual needs, but is more a matter of geography. If a school or district values inclusion, most, if not all students will be included. If they do not, students will be segregated. A move from one district to another often results in a change of placement. The student’s needs did not change but values did.

Cheryl Jorgensen (2002) presents 6 reasons for segregating high school students with disabilities (although these same reasons are used for students at all age levels) and then gives arguments for why those reasons are “indefensible.” Paraphrased, they are:

Reason	Misconstrued construct	Counter argument
1. Not smart enough	Belief in the idea of “mental retardation”	Mental retardation is a social construct and not a characteristic – Luckasson et al, 1992
	Need to have prerequisite skills	No one learns in a predetermined, linear fashion
	Intellect parallels appearance	Inability to move, talk, walk, and see has nothing to do with intelligence
	Invalid use of assessment/testing	Until students have a reliable means to communicate, we must not judge them unable to learn
	Prejudice	Learning capacity is not a predetermined quantity
2. Curriculum content is unimportant to this student