Essay Undergraduate 690 words

History and Efficacy of Inclusion in Special Education

~4 min read

Abstract

This paper examines the history and efficacy of inclusion in special education within U.S. public schools. It traces key federal legislation — including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment of 1997 — that guaranteed free and appropriate education for students with disabilities. The paper discusses the ongoing debate between segregated and integrated education models, outlines a continuum of placement options from full inclusion to self-contained classrooms, and distinguishes between mainstreaming and inclusion philosophies. Drawing on research from the early 2000s through 2009, it highlights the persistent gap in academic achievement for students with disabilities and the ongoing priority of improving their outcomes in public schools.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

The paper grounds its argument in specific federal legislation, lending credibility and a clear historical framework for understanding inclusion policy.
It presents multiple sides of the inclusion debate — supporters of integration and defenders of special schools — without dismissing either perspective.
The paper clearly distinguishes between related but distinct concepts (mainstreaming, partial inclusion, full inclusion, self-contained classrooms), which aids reader comprehension of a complex policy landscape.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper effectively uses a policy-to-practice structure: it opens with federal mandates and accountability data, then moves through philosophical debate, and finally into concrete classroom placement models. This layered approach — from law to theory to practice — is a useful organizational strategy for education policy papers, showing how abstract legislation translates into real instructional decisions.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens with a legislative and accountability context, citing NCLB data to establish urgency. It then shifts to the historical debate between segregated and integrated education. A third section frames inclusion as "best practice" and introduces a continuum of placement options. The final section distinguishes mainstreaming from full inclusion. References follow APA format and draw from peer-reviewed journals and government sources.

Introduction: Federal Mandates and Academic Accountability

The increased accountability in schools across the nation has made it difficult to ignore the large numbers of students with special needs who continue to fail to meet academic standards within public schools. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), along with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment of 1997, has all but guaranteed a free and appropriate education for all students attending public institutions, regardless of their specific academic deficiencies. This federal legislation, along with various state requirements, has required that all children have access to a free and appropriate public education, and that every effort is made to ensure their academic success (Pickard, 2009).

In 2001, the first year of the No Child Left Behind mandate, the United States Department of Education reported that only nine states reported any measure of academic achievement for special needs children as it related to Category 10, Students with Disabilities (SWD) (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Although more recent data show some improvement within public schools over the course of the past eight years, the need to increase the academic growth of identified students remains a priority among all institutions within the public school sector (Pickard, 2009).

The Inclusion Debate: Segregated vs. Integrated Education

Continuing controversy over the role of segregated education for children with special needs makes a historical perspective particularly significant. Supporters of inclusion argue for the abolition of special schools as a means of promoting the rights of disabled children to be fully included in society. Defenders of special schools present a case based on the perceived superiority of a system that offers protected time and space for children, supported by smaller class sizes and practitioners with particular expertise (Read and Walmsley, 2006).

At the present time, the idea of integrated education is one of the most widely discussed issues in specialized publications and among specialists involved in the teaching and upbringing of children with impaired development, both in mainstream schools and special schools. Integration is seen as a way to enable a child with limited health abilities to attend a general education school alongside typically developing peers (Godovnikova, 2009).

2 Locked Sections · 285 words remaining

49% of this paper shown

Integration as Best Practice · 175 words

"Continuum of placement models from full inclusion to self-contained"

Mainstreaming vs. Full Inclusion · 110 words

"Distinctions between mainstreaming and full inclusion philosophies"

130,000+ paper examplesAI writing assistantCitation generatorCancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Federal Legislation Free Appropriate Education Inclusion Mainstreaming Students with Disabilities Integrated Education Resource Room Self-Contained Classroom Special Schools Academic Achievement