Rationale for and Benefits of Inclusion?

Table 1 Benefits of Inclusion Benefits for Children with Disabilities · More stimulating environments · Role models who facilitate communication, social, and adaptive behaviors · Improved competence in IEP objectives · Opportunities to make new friends and share new experiences · Greater acceptance by peers · Membership in a class and in the school Benefits for Children without Disabilities · More accepting of individual differences · More comfortable with students w/ disabilities · Become more helpful in general · Acquire leadership skills · Improved self-esteem Benefits of Inclusion to Teachers · Awareness/appreciation of individual differences in all children · Access to specialists/resources that can help all children · Learn new teaching techniques that can help all children

 

Rationale for Inclusion
Much has been written about rationale for merging special and general education and resulting benefits of properly conducted inclusive programs (e.g., Karagiannis, et al., 1996; Sailor, et al., 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1990). Yet, rationale and benefits of inclusion seem to have been lost in all the rhetoric of rights and moral imperatives. In addition, anticipated benefits have not been seen in many so-called inclusion programs, because these programs have been so poorly implemented. What was it that made so many people so excited about inclusion? Two factors in particular seemed to stand out when discussing the rationale for inclusion.

First, and perhaps the greatest reason was, inclusion promised parents that their child with a disability would be part of a larger group and a true member of a general education class. While friendships could not be forced, opportunities for forming friendships with peers without disabilities became much more realistic when children with disabilities where based in general education classes (Brown, et al., 1989; Falvey & Rosenberg, 1995; Ferguson, 1995; Snell, 1991; Stainback & Stainback, 1990; Strully & Strully, 1996). Simple things such as talking with friends in class, playing together on the playground, chatting over lunch, getting ready to go home, and sharing excitement of assemblies and other school-wide functions seemed to be more difficult to plan when children with disabilities were separated from peers without disabilities (Ferguson, 1995).

A second critical reason was the fact that empirical research showed a separate, dual system of special education (mostly self-contained) and general education were relatively ineffective and inefficient. For example, reviews of research by Wang and Baker (1986) and Madden & Slavin (1983) found integrated settings (when implemented properly) were more effective in helping students with disabilities achieve both academically and socially while avoiding negative effects (e.g., lower self-esteem, less confidence, lack of motivation) that often had been associated with segregation. Similarly, Lipsky and Gartner (1998) reviewed several individual studies, as well as reports from the United States Department of Education, and found graduation rates, post-secondary education, employment, and residential independence were significantly lower for children with disabilities (most of whom were in segregated programs) compared to children without disabilities. More recently, research has shown that individualized and even unique instructional techniques can effectively be carried out within the general education setting (Billingsley & Kelly, 1994; Hunt, Staub, Alwel, & Goetz, 1994; Janney & Snell, 1997; Logan & Keefe, 1997). It seemed that separating children with disabilities for educational purposes, while well intentioned, was not effective or necessary.

 

Benefits of Inclusion

And what of benefits of properly conducted inclusive programs? Were benefits of inclusive programs anticipated by advocates in the 1980s found in the 1990s? Recent research has, in fact, supported benefits of inclusion not only to the child with a disability, but to nondisabled children and to general education staff (c.f., Downing, 1996; (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edesman, & Schattman, 1993; Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994; Janzen, Wilgosh, & MacDonald, 1995; Karagiannis, 1996, et al., Kishi & Meyer, 1994; National Study of Inclusive Education, 1995; Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter,1992). Table 1 provides a list of these benefits as reported in the literature. However, it is important to remember these benefits are only available in properly conducted inclusive programs.

 

Summary

 

Those of us who have promoted the inclusion philosophy may have been a little too enthusiastic and headstrong about reforming special education and adapted physical education. Most inclusion advocates would probably admit they saw inclusion as a cause, focused on the philosophy of inclusion rather than the individual child, and disregarded preferences and needs of students with disabilities and their parents (this author included)! In addition, those of us who have advocated so strongly for inclusion in physical education were naive in thinking general physical education programs and general physical educators were ready and willing to include students with disabilities.

Yet, reexamination of the philosophy, rationale, and benefits of inclusion suggests to this author that inclusion is still the right thing to do for many, but not all children with disabilities. In fact, even those staunchly opposed to inclusion rarely say that inclusion, in principle, is a bad idea (Bratlinger, 1997). Rather, inclusion opponents argue either on legal grounds (i.e., IDEA's mandate for LRE and a continuum of placements) (Stein, 1994), or that current attitudes and conditions in general education are such that children with disabilities would not do well in general education settings (Brantlinger, 1997; Grosse, 1991; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995; Kelly, 1994b). Yet, recent reauthorization of IDEA (TASH, 1998) and recent trends in courts' interpretations of least restrictive environment (Block, 1996) suggest that the legal system seems to be favoring inclusion. In addition, a small yet significant group of recent empirical studies on inclusive physical education already cited in this article suggest that, under certain circumstances, inclusion in physical education can be successful for children with even severe disabilities. Perhaps the bandwagon of inclusion was the right bandwagon that simply strayed off course. Perhaps it is time to set this bandwagon back on the correct course by examining how properly to implement an inclusive physical education program.

Editor's Note Unfortunately, a great deal of unnecessary confusion continues to exist regarding inclusion, what it is and what it is not. Inclusion purists advocate automatic universal (one) placement for all students with disabilities in regular schools and classes, including physical education, regardless of type, severity, or child's needs (this is the other side of the coin from illegal arbitrary special classes for all students with disabilities). Inclusionists promote bringing all necessary resources (support, materials, and personnel) to the regular class setting, not taking the child to the resources. However, this is neither the law of the land (now IDEA, initially PL 94-142), nor the way to meet the needs of each child. Inclusionists believe physical proximity insures social acceptance and true integration. The law still specifies least restrictive environment (LRE), encompassing a continuum of alternative educational placement based on the individual needs of each child. Every eligible child with a disability has the right to start in a regular class setting. If this is deemed inappropriate, and that child is placed in a more restrictive environment, then it is the responsibility of educators to justify why a less restrictive environment is neither possible nor appropriate. Placement should be a major topic and determined through the IEP process. Virtually all demands of purist inclusionists are part and parcel (required) of PL 94-142/IDEA-i.e., comprehensive program of personnel development/inservice programs, appropriate and necessary support, supplementary/related services, individualization. Certainly, major reasons inclusion has not been successful include-failure to carry it out properly, failure to implement it appropriately, failure to recognize inclusion as that part of least restrictive environment in which students are appropriately integrated into regular schools and classes, failure to provide necessary resources and support services, large physical education classes, negative attitudes of teachers toward the process, and the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy among inclusionists! To place children in inappropriate regular settings is cruel; to keep them out of appropriate regular settings is criminal. Decisions as to whether integrated, special, or some combination of settings is best should be made on an individual basis in terms of each child's educational/physical education needs.

Selected References & Author Information