This paper examines the practice of inclusion in public schools — the education of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate supports. Drawing on federal legislation including IDEA, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, and No Child Left Behind, the paper traces the legal foundations of inclusion and reviews the academic literature on its outcomes. It explores both the advantages of inclusion, such as improved social skills, peer relationships, and self-esteem, and its disadvantages, including insufficient funding, inadequate teacher training, and inconsistent implementation. The paper concludes with recommendations for formal program evaluation and ongoing teacher development to improve inclusion outcomes for all students.
The paper effectively synthesizes multiple sources across a literature review to build an evidence-based argument. Rather than citing individual studies in isolation, it groups findings thematically — teacher attitudes, social outcomes, academic achievement — and uses agreements and disagreements across sources to map the state of the field. This multi-source synthesis is a core skill in academic writing at the undergraduate level.
The paper opens with an introduction establishing the legal and conceptual framework for inclusion. It then moves to a pros-and-cons section evaluating stakeholder perspectives, followed by a definitions glossary. A formal literature review synthesizes empirical research, and a results section reports school-level patterns. The paper closes with a discussion and summary that integrates findings and offers practical recommendations for program evaluation and teacher development.
One of the most controversial topics in public education is the appropriate setting for children with disabilities in the education system. This debate has taken the form of questioning whether the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education classrooms will produce better results for those children. The practice of inclusion can look very different across school districts, as the understanding of inclusion — including the definition itself — varies greatly. The most widely accepted concept of inclusion is the equal access of all students to general education regardless of disability (King, 2003; Short & Martin, 2005; Smith & Leonard, 2005). In most cases this means the child receives all support services needed within the general education classroom rather than in a specialized classroom setting, thereby fully integrating them into the classroom and school environment (King, 2003). Inclusion is based on the premise that both special education teachers and general education teachers have expertise in models and strategies of learning that, when combined, can produce methods that work for all children rather than requiring those methods to be separated based on children's disabilities (Schirmer & Cabson, 1995).
Inclusion has been an emotionally charged topic that originated in legislation beginning with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all students should have equal access to education. This ruling paved the way for legislation related to children with disabilities and resulted in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). This legislation specified that all children must be educated in the least restrictive environment to meet their educational needs, and that any exclusionary practices may only be implemented when no other alternatives, supports, or assistive technologies exist that could allow for success in an inclusive environment (1975). This law was later amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), yet the stipulation that all children be educated in the least restrictive environment remained unchanged (Schirmer & Cabson, 1995).
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002) was signed into federal law and mandated that states develop assessments to ensure students are achieving age-appropriate goals. This legislation created standards of accountability that emphasize teacher effectiveness as a key factor in student achievement. Teachers are required to strengthen academic expectations and accountability for children with disabilities and to close the achievement gap between high- and low-achieving students (Smith & Leonard, 2005). As a result of NCLB, increased attention has been paid to the academic success of students who need additional supports in order to succeed in general education settings.
While the concept of inclusion appears seemingly straightforward, the practice of integrating inclusion into the classroom can be complex (Adamowycz, 2008). On the one hand, inclusion acknowledges that all students must be included; yet at the same time it must account for the reality that individual students will require distinct teaching strategies in order to achieve success (Adamowycz, 2008). This may be one reason why, despite a large body of research demonstrating the general efficacy of the inclusion approach, its integration into school systems has been slow (Frederickson, Simmonds, Evans, & Soulsby, 2007).
The debate on inclusion has drawn passionate arguments from stakeholders at all levels. Opinions range from full support of inclusion to advocacy for separate, individualized education. Nonetheless, there are persuasive arguments on both sides that warrant exploration.
While some maintain that keeping children in segregated special education settings is the best way for them to develop, it is becoming increasingly understood that segregation is not only costly, but that its long-term negative social and academic outcomes can be improved when inclusion is implemented with appropriate resources and support (Fitch, 2003). Proponents of inclusion emphasize that, rather than a set of regulations schools must follow, inclusion is a philosophy and belief system about the education of every young person (King, 2003). When approached in this way, all students are educated in their neighborhoods and integrated into the school community (King, 2003).
Advocates of inclusion assert that this approach benefits all children in the classroom and school, as the philosophy shifts from a focus on disability to an emphasis on the abilities of each student (Schirmer & Cabson, 1995). Schirmer and Cabson (1995) claim that this new emphasis will raise standards for all students regardless of ability, thereby increasing student attainment, improving self-concept, and supporting strong social relationships.
Several advantages of the inclusion model have been identified, including increased opportunities to develop social skills through interaction with same-age peers, exposure to age-appropriate curriculum, removal of social stigma, and the fostering of positive attitudes about persons with disabilities (Smith & Leonard, 2005). Success in the general education environment can lead to empowerment and the development of greater confidence and self-esteem, as students accomplish educational goals alongside their peers (Smith & Leonard, 2005). This is further supported by participation in a learning environment that is as close to the mainstream as possible, where students can improve both academically and socially (Smith & Leonard, 2005).
When coupled with appropriate services, students in inclusion classrooms have demonstrated academic and behavioral progress and increased ownership of their role as a student (Short & Martin, 2005). Research has also shown that when students with disabilities spend the majority of their time in a mainstream classroom, they are more likely to be socially accepted than when they are in exclusion classrooms (Short & Martin, 2005). One of the most widely noted benefits of inclusion is the opportunity for students to develop appropriate social skills in settings that are not available to them otherwise (Fitch, 2003).
However, there are also disadvantages to an inclusive approach. Introducing inclusion without appropriate resources can produce negative outcomes for the child and for the learning environment as a whole (Short & Martin, 2005). A lack of sufficient funding, personnel, staff training, and time needed to modify the curriculum can result in poor planning and inadequate coordination of support services for students with disabilities (Short & Martin, 2005).
These negative outcomes can include damage to peer relationships, feelings of failure, and lower self-esteem. Opponents of inclusion also raise concerns about the over-identification of children as needing special education services; however, there is little evidence to suggest that students who qualify for special education services do not benefit from receiving them. There are situations in which students with disabilities are not academically or socially prepared for the general education setting, which can cause additional stress and lead to ostracism from their peer group (Short & Martin, 2005).
There are also ongoing debates regarding the social integration of students with disabilities. Some researchers claim that inclusion fosters cohesive social relationships that students with disabilities would not otherwise have access to (Mamlim & Harris, 2005; Smith & Leonard, 2005), while others argue that inclusion can increase the social stigma attached to having a disability and leaves some children more ostracized than before (Fitch, 2003; Smith & Leonard, 2005). Advocates for inclusion counter that if a negative social outcome occurs as a result of inclusion, it is not truly inclusion, and the service delivery method should be re-evaluated as indicative of poor integration (Frederickson et al., 2007). This position, however, may lead to inaccurate assessments of inclusion's efficacy if researchers dismiss any ineffective program as not genuinely constituting inclusion.
An important consideration is that educators and administrators must interpret the law properly as it relates to a continuum of services. Students who cannot succeed in a general education classroom even with modifications should not be placed in that environment. Yet this law is often interpreted literally to mean that all students must be placed in general education classrooms, resulting in placements that do not serve their best interests (Short & Martin, 2005). Although the inclusion movement has generated controversy and produced mixed results, it has become a major force in the placement and education of children with disabilities and is expected to expand in the future (King, 2003).
Accommodations: A change made to the environment or expectation so that a child with a disability can successfully complete a task.
Constituents: Citizens who are represented in government by officials for whom they vote.
Curriculum: The course of study offered in a school.
Disability: According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Inclusion: The provision of educational services to students with a full range of abilities and disabilities in the general education classroom, with appropriate in-class support.
General Education: A broad selection of subjects that emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge, understanding, and evaluation of ideas.
Mainstream: Another term used for inclusion, or integration into regular classes.
Modification: An alteration or adjustment made to facilitate a student's success.
Paradigm: A set of notions, beliefs, theories, and practices that represents a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them.
Segregation: The act of separating people.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience. Education, 125(2), 163–172.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142 (1975).
Fitch, F. (2003). Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students' changing sense of self. The Urban Review, 35(3), 233–252.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2007.00463.x
King, I. C. (2003). Examining middle school inclusion classrooms through the lens of learner-centered principles. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 151–159.
Mamlim, N., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Elementary teachers' referral to special education in light of inclusion and prereferral: "Every child is here to learn . . . but some of these children are in real trouble." Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 385–396.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Ryndak, D. L., Jackson, L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Defining school inclusion for students with moderate to severe disabilities: What do experts say? Exceptionality, 8(2), 101–116.
Schirmer, B. R., & Cabson, J. (1995). Inclusion of children with disabilities in elementary school classrooms. Reading Teacher, 49(1), 66–69.
Short, C., & Martin, B. N. (2005). Case study: Attitudes of rural high school students and teachers regarding inclusion. The Rural Educator, 27(1), 1–10.
Smith, R., & Leonard, P. (2005). Collaboration for inclusion: Practitioner perspectives. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38, 269–279. DOI: 10.1080/10665680500299650
Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264–270. doi: 10.1177/002221949502800502
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.