Inclusion in the Classroom: Pros, Cons, and Research

Introduction to Inclusion

Those in favor of inclusion claim that the process benefits special needs children, mainstream children, teachers, and society as a whole. Those who are against inclusion use a variety of arguments that range from disruptions to mainstream students to accusations of budget-driven motives. This paper examines the issue of inclusion from both sides, presenting the pros and cons as well as the research studies that have been conducted to support the claims on each side.

The term inclusion refers to the assimilation of special needs students into the mainstream classroom. Whereas special needs students were once separated from their peers in schools — with their own specialized classes and teachers — inclusion is today becoming an increasingly popular alternative. The primary reason for this shift is that inclusion is alleged to be helpful not only for special needs students, but for mainstream students as well.

As the American classroom continues to grow more diverse in terms of ethnicity, it is also becoming more diverse in terms of student abilities. The idea is that diversity of all kinds exerts a positive influence on students, so mainstream students learn from the special needs child while the special needs child becomes better socialized and more adjusted to the situations he or she is likely to face inside and outside the classroom. There is concern, however, that special needs students are disruptive to the mainstream classroom and that teachers end up spending too much time addressing those students' needs at the expense of other learners. It is essentially this argument that is responsible for the ongoing controversy surrounding inclusion.

The Pros and Cons of Inclusion

Proponents of inclusion claim that there are numerous benefits for both special needs and mainstream students. According to Jorgenson, Schuh, and Nisbet (2005), some of the benefits of inclusion for mainstream students include:

1) A curriculum that is more flexible and responsive to individual needs
2) The presence of support services and technology
3) Broader viewpoints incorporated into the teaching process due to the collaboration of additional teaching experts
4) Improved teacher training and teaching techniques that are advantageous to all students

Lyman (1993) adds that customized teaching strategies are essential components of a successful inclusion program because they encourage students to work harder and take more risks. This is due to the notion that inclusion fosters an environment requiring "a sense of community among faculty and students, a shared mission, and the ability to successfully collaborate with others" (p. 1). Most importantly, the experience of integrating disabled students into the mainstream classroom allows students who are not accustomed to dealing with diversity to become better prepared for "the real world."

Each of these benefits has been advocated by pro-inclusion activists as reasons that incorporating special needs students into the mainstream classroom is beneficial not only to the special needs child, but to the entire class, including the teachers. This is not to say, however, that there are not also numerous benefits specifically for the special needs student. Raschke and Bronson (1999) report that, for the special needs student, inclusion:

1) Affords a sense of belonging to the diverse human family
2) Provides a diverse, stimulating environment in which to grow and learn
3) Cultivates feelings of being a member of a diverse community
4) Enables the development of friendships
5) Provides opportunities to develop neighborhood friends
6) Enhances self-respect
7) Provides affirmations of individuality
8) Provides peer models
9) Provides opportunities to be educated alongside same-age peers

Interestingly, most of the benefits described for mainstream students are academic in nature, while most of the advantages outlined for special needs students relate to socialization. So while mainstream students benefit from a more diverse curriculum and teacher collaboration, special needs students benefit from improved socialization and self-esteem. Perhaps it is because of these differences in types of benefits that some critics rally against inclusion.

Some of the concerns raised by anti-inclusion activists pertain to the special needs student, and some pertain to mainstream students. Tornillo (1994), for example, worries that special needs students will not receive the proper attention they need in the mainstream classroom, while mainstream students will simultaneously suffer. He states that "the disabled children are not getting appropriate, specialized attention and care, and the regular students' education is disrupted constantly." From an academic standpoint, Tornillo is concerned that inclusion will make it increasingly difficult for schools to meet national standards, resulting in less funding and, in turn, even greater disruption to the educational process.

The pro-inclusion argument that mainstreaming disabled students promotes acceptance of diversity and thereby enhances learning has been challenged many times by critics. According to Antoinette (2003), "While promoting an integrated sense of community sounds attractive, opponents of full inclusion argue that, in reality, it is quite difficult to achieve... Opponents further argue that the stigma of the disabled student may be perpetuated and enlarged in the general classroom, to the detriment of the general student" (p. 2041).

Another argument in the anti-inclusion camp is that schools are pushing for inclusive classrooms primarily to save money — that administrators are motivated by budget concerns rather than student welfare. However, Sklaroff (1994) rebuts this claim, noting that "while administrators may see inclusion as a means to save funds by lumping together all students in the same facilities, inclusion rarely costs less than segregated classes when the concept is implemented responsibly" (p. 7).

So who is right and who is wrong? Are pro-inclusion activists correct in asserting that inclusive classrooms benefit both special needs and mainstream students? Or are anti-inclusion concerns about student well-being the most well-grounded? Turning to research helps answer this question to some extent. There is more evidence in the scholarly literature suggesting that inclusion is more beneficial than harmful. However, as with most controversial issues, a considerable amount of research also supports the critics' point of view. If this were a civil case decided on the preponderance of evidence, the pro-inclusion side would likely prevail — yet it remains important to examine both sides carefully.

Conclusion

Controversy over the effects of inclusion on the academic and social performance of non-disabled students remains high. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find evidence that conclusively determines whether inclusion deters or enhances student development. Much of the variation in research results stems from differences in demographics or in the severity of the disabilities among the students studied. However, many of the discrepancies may also arise from the degree to which teachers understand the specific needs of a successful inclusion experience.

The implementation of more comprehensive inclusion-awareness programs for both teachers and students is therefore paramount. Additionally, expanding the roles and responsibilities of mainstream teachers who are willing to go the extra mile to support their students can improve overall student performance — both academically and in life.

References

Antoinette, M. L. (2003). Examining how the inclusion of disabled students into the general classroom may affect non-disabled classmates. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(6), 2039–2049.

Charles, C. M., & Senter, G. W. (2002). Elementary classroom management (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94.

Jorgenson, C. M., Schuh, M. C., & Nisbet, J. A. (2005). The inclusion facilitator's guide. Brookes Publishing Company.

Lamar-Dukes, P., & Dukes, C. (2005). Consider the roles and responsibilities of the inclusion support teacher. Intervention in School & Clinic, 41(1), 55–65.

Lyman, L. (1993). Group building for successful inclusion programs. Flint Hills Educational Research Development Association Special Education Inclusion Conference.

Raschke, D., & Bronson, J. (1999). Creative educators at work: All children including those with disabilities can play traditional classroom games. In Renaissance Group (n.d.), Philosophy: Children that learn together, learn to live together. Retrieved from

Schnorr, R. F. (1990). "Peter? He comes and goes": First graders' perspectives on a part-time mainstream student. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 15(4), 231–240.

Sklaroff, S. (1994, January 12). A.F.T. urges halt to "full inclusion" movement. Education Week.

Tarver-Behring, S., Spagna, M. E., & Sullivan, J. (1998). School counselors and full inclusion for children with special needs. Professional School Counseling, 1(3), 51–56.

Tornillo, P. (1994, March 6). A lightweight fad bad for our schools? Orlando Sentinel.