Inclusion vs. Segregation in Special Education: Finding Balance
This paper examines the long-standing debate in special education between full inclusion (mainstreaming) and separate, specialized educational environments for students with disabilities. Beginning with the historical roots of special education policy in the 1960s and 1970s, the paper traces legislative milestones such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the concept of the "least restrictive environment." It evaluates the benefits and drawbacks of full inclusion, explores the resource model as a widely accepted middle-ground approach, and proposes the charter school model as a viable alternative for meeting the individualized needs of students with disabilities. The paper ultimately argues that a balanced, partially inclusive approach — supported by well-trained educators and adequate funding — offers the most effective educational outcomes for all learners.
- Introduction: The Controversy of Special Education: Overview of special education debate and partial inclusion thesis
- Historical Development of Mainstreaming Policy: From exclusion to the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act
- The Resource Model and Inclusion Debate: Resource model as dominant middle-ground approach in public schools
- Arguments For and Against Full Inclusion: Benefits and drawbacks of mainstreaming for students with disabilities
- The Least Restrictive Environment and Federal Policy: Confusion around LRE standards and individualized interpretation
- The Charter School as an Alternative Model: Charter schools proposed as flexible, IEP-driven alternative setting
- Conclusion: Balancing Inclusion and Specialized Support: Partial inclusion and expert instruction as the recommended synthesis
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper draws on a wide range of cited sources spanning legislation, empirical research, and practitioner perspectives, lending credibility to its argument for a balanced approach.
- It traces a clear historical arc — from exclusion, to mainstreaming, to the resource model, to charter school alternatives — giving the argument developmental structure.
- The paper acknowledges counterarguments (e.g., reduced self-esteem in mainstreamed settings, undertrained general educators) before advocating for its position, demonstrating intellectual fairness.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses literature synthesis to build a policy argument. Rather than relying on a single source or perspective, it weaves together legislative history, educational research, and practitioner commentary to support the claim that partial inclusion through alternative models — particularly charter schools — represents the most practical and equitable solution for students with disabilities.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical and legislative context, establishes the mainstream debate between full inclusion and segregation, evaluates the resource model as a compromise, critiques the "least restrictive environment" standard's ambiguity, and then proposes the charter school model as a concrete alternative. It closes with a synthesis conclusion calling for balance. The structure moves from problem identification through policy critique to solution proposal, which is effective for an education policy argument.
Introduction: The Controversy of Special Education
Special education as a concept is historically shrouded in controversy (Seligmann, 2001, p. 1). Additionally, the demand for special education funding and implementation has only increased as the number of students recognized as needing special services has continued to grow exponentially over the past forty years (Macht, 1998, p. 1). Cultural awareness of the challenges facing developmentally delayed students has also increased exponentially since the time when such individuals were secluded from society at home or institutionalized in inappropriately severe and clinical settings. Questions wavering between the mainstreaming of special needs students and isolating them in systems designed specifically to meet their needs seem to be perennial. The fundamental answers to these questions, as with most things, must lie in the middle ground, where partial inclusion offers both challenged and less challenged learners the opportunities of social and educational interaction in a balanced and positive formulation.
The right answers, and the most effective education plans for such students, are still being sought by both educators and families of developmentally challenged children. The concept of inclusion or mainstreaming has become the most influential of all special education approaches. The idea of including even the most severely challenged children within the same classrooms and schools as mainstream students has had a growing influence over the education system. "The hottest issue in special education during the 1980s and 1990s was where, not how, students with disabilities should be taught — the schools and classrooms they should attend, not the instruction they should receive." (Crockett & Kauffman, 1999, p. 1)
The challenges of such inclusion are both obvious and subtle. Often, the prejudices of mainstream educators, parents, and even administrators play a role in the degree to which inclusion is embraced in any given school district.
It has long been recognized (Sarason, 1982) that a major factor in the success or failure of a policy such as mainstreaming is the attitudes of the general education teacher (Hannah & Pliner, 1983; Horne, 1985). Early on, general education teachers expressed some negative attitudes, especially feelings of inadequacy in dealing with students with disabilities, although they remained generally positive about the concept of integration (Ringlaben & Price, 1981; Stephens & Braun, 1980). (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p. 279)
The challenge for parents and educators alike is to develop a curriculum that provides the best balance of support for all students and all educators. The most realistic view of mainstreaming and inclusion requires the educator to adopt the idea of partial inclusion balanced with a separate special needs program that is well funded and well developed to meet the needs of special needs students.
Historical Development of Mainstreaming Policy
The concept of inclusion or mainstreaming of developmentally delayed students was born at a time when education for these students was inadequate, and parents and educators rallied together to attempt to offer a solution. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was not unheard of for special needs students to be offered very limited educational opportunities — and sometimes nothing at all from the public education system. "The development of segregated special education programs might be considered a step toward educational inclusion because students with significant learning needs were totally excluded from schools prior to the development of special education." (Sobsey, 1993, p. 1) Strained by a lack of awareness, but mostly by limited funding, schools either offered no place for students with disabilities or provided a limited curriculum that did not include enough interaction or services to help challenged students begin the process of assimilation into normal learning and social models.
Beginning with L. M. Dunn's (1968) analysis and formalized in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, mainstreaming became the norm. The push for integration continued with the Regular Education Initiative and, more recently, Full Inclusion. It is evident that integration became the norm, but the nature of the debate became centered on the question of where special education students should be educated. (Kavale, 2000, p. 303)
Trends in special education have historically revolved between isolated education for special needs children and full inclusion within the mainstream classroom, but the most popular and enduring model for the education of special needs children has become the resource model.
By the late 1970s, integration and the concept of mainstreaming came to be defined primarily by the resource model of service delivery (e.g., Deno, 1973; Hammill & Weiderholt, 1972; Reger, 1973). A resource program represents a structure in which a teacher has responsibility for providing supportive, educationally related services to special education students during specified time periods. (Kavale, 2000, p. 304)
The Resource Model and Inclusion Debate
The resource model has continued to be regarded as the best educational balance for children with special needs and for the school as a whole. Most educators agree that the best possible solution should always be tailored to the needs of each individual student, and to a large degree the resource model is thought of as providing that balance. The model includes what most would consider the best of both styles of special education — inclusion and separation (Gersten, Schiller & Vaughn, 2000, p. 6). Though there are many opponents of the resource model, it has continued to remain the main tradition in public schools (Kauffman, 1999, p. 61). With the general restructuring trend in education, many researchers and practitioners alike feel that special education is once again being ignored, or at least avoided, as a topic of consideration.
The ideas behind inclusion seem to fit well with some concepts of school restructuring, such as detracking (Cohen, 1994–1995; DuFour, 1995; Savitch & Serling, 1994–1995), community schools (Rameriz-Smith, 1995), multicultural education (O'Neil, 1994–1995), and integrated curriculum (Sheppo, Hartsfield, Ruff, Jones, & Holinga, 1994–1995). Most school reform efforts, however, have not considered special education issues. Yell (1992) and Kauffman (1987) have pointed out that the aims of Goals 2000 (P.L. 103-227), as well as many current school reforms, ignore the needs and capacities of students with mild disabilities. (Mamlin, 1999, p. 36)
Since the 1970s, incredible strides have been made in the field of special education, and the intellectual tools to offer adequate education for special needs students are available outside of a fully mainstreamed system. "Opponents point to research showing negative effects of inclusion, often citing low self-esteem of students with disabilities in the general education setting and poor academic grades." (Hines) Mainstreaming has now been embraced as the norm, and frustration over alternatives is compounded by the fact that funding for alternative programs has, to a large degree, decreased. It has once again come to be regarded as secondary to the success of the general student population.
Public schools in nearly every state have been subjected to budget restrictions that demand solutions such as the abolition of alternative education for disabled students. Mainstreaming, born of good intentions, has in many cases become not a means for disabled students to achieve success but another way for them to continue to be denied it.
The major concern is that general education teachers are not trained with a four-year degree in dealing with disabilities the way special education teachers are. Students with more severe challenges may only become more frustrated and isolated if placed in a classroom where they cannot keep up. The inclusion ideal is not always reality. (York, 2003, p. 1)
The difficulty, then, is finding a solution that both meets the needs of special needs children and is functional within an education system that has, to a large degree, fully embraced the concept of inclusion. There are more proponents than opponents of mainstreaming.
Conclusion: Balancing Inclusion and Specialized Support
In summary, the results of reviewed literature lead to the conclusion that the best possible solution to the inclusion question is one of balance. Educating general educators about the special needs of disabled students is a meaningful step toward the success of partial inclusion and should be continued. Additionally, the history and current trends of inclusion as a goal lead to the clear conclusion that the majority of special education work needs to continue to be done by experts in the field. Students with varying degrees of need must have opportunities to interact in a general education setting, but the special needs of challenged students must not be lost within the rhetoric of ideals rather than practical situational realities. Balancing the system of offerings is crucial not only to special needs students but also to the broader reformative goals of all schools.
References
Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1999). The least restrictive environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education's role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157+.
Hines, R. A. (2003). Inclusion in middle schools: ERIC Digest.
Jenkins, A. A., Pateman, B., & Black, R. S. (2002). Partnerships for dual preparation in elementary, secondary, and special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6), 359+.
Kavale, K. A. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279.
Macht, J. (1998). Special education's failed system: A question of eligibility. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Mamlin, N. (1999). Despite best intentions: When inclusion fails. Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 36.
Seligmann, T. J. (2001). An IDEA schools can use: Lessons from special education legislation. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(2), 759+.
Sobsey, D. (1993). Integration outcomes: Theoretical models and empirical investigations. The Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 21(1).
York, R. (2003). Inclusion and the hearing impaired.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.