Supporting Inclusion: Beyond the Rhetoric.

Abstract

Ms. Roach provides some guidelines for schools and school districts, based on identified factors that seem to contribute to the creation of successful schools. Inclusion can be defined as the practice of serving students with a full range of abilities and disabilities in the general classroom - with appropriate in-class support. It has been a hotly debated aspect of school reform for the past several years. Proponents point to disappointing outcomes for students with disabilities in traditional programs and to the growing body of literature describing favorable outcomes for exceptional students taught in the general classroom.(1) They describe inclusion not as a place or a particular method of instruction, but rather as a philosophy of supporting children in their learning, a philosophy that holds that all children can learn.(2) In contrast, opponents question the feasibility of teaching classes composed of students who vary broadly in abilities, they challenge the motives of those who wish to create schooling environments (suggesting that inclusion is merely a way to save money), and they question whether the current teaching force is adequately trained to create classrooms and schools.(3) Despite the debate, inclusion is increasingly accepted and widely practiced. Based on annual data reported by the states to the U.S. Department of Education, the percentage of all students with disabilities (aged 6 to 21) who were receiving educational services in regular classrooms during the 199293 school year was 39.81%; the comparable figure stood at only 28.88% during the 1987-88 school year.(4) This amounts to an increase of nearly 11 percentage points in just five years. Meanwhile, the percentage of disabled students educated outside of the regular school building dropped from 6.4% to 4.5% during the same time period. These figures reflect the general trend toward educating students with disabilities in the regular classroom and school. Yet it is difficult to say exactly how widespread the practice of inclusion is, and it is difficult to gauge the quality of inclusive programs. The data reported to Congress by the states reflect where students spend the of their school day. Many of the students who reside in regular classrooms for the majority of the school day do so because they receive a small amount of support (typically defined by minutes of personnel time expended). Conversely, because of state data reporting systems and state funding systems, some students who receive full-time support from educators in regular classes may be counted as separate students.(5) Such variability causes errors in both directions in reporting inclusion data, leaving it virtually impossible for state and federal officials to respond accurately to questions regarding the prevalence of inclusion. Another complicating factor is the broad variety of definitions of inclusion in use within the community. For instance, in one school, teachers may define a student as included when she attends a general classroom for four of six periods each day and when instruction is specifically adapted to meet her needs only in her two special education classes. By contrast, another school that has abolished all classes and provides support services to all students within the general environment may also be defined by its teachers as inclusive. Generally, advocates of inclusion make a distinction between the first example and the second. Programs that place students with disabilities in regular classes without support and then pull those students out of regular classes for instruction are referred to as engaged in mainstreaming. Mainstreaming generally begins from the premise that students with disabilities should be separated from the regular class for instruction. …