Inclusion Needs to Be an Option — But Not the Only Option
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder discusses why full inclusion should be one placement option among many, not a mandate applied to every student regardless of need.
Key Takeaways
- The evidence for full inclusion is shaky - Research doesn't conclusively support full inclusion as the best placement for all students with disabilities
- Students need a continuum of services - Self-contained classrooms, resource rooms, and specialized programs all have their place
- One size doesn't fit all - Individual student needs should drive placement decisions, not ideology
Transcript
Inclusion is illegal to offer as the only available placement for students with disabilities.
And yet a lot of districts are trying to move in that direction because of a very strong belief that inclusion is better and that if a student can be supported in the gen ed classroom, if we can put the right supports in place, they can succeed and everything will be better in an inclusive setting.
And I think that's a good thing to try.
I think that's the right goal.
But we have to ask ourselves on two fronts if that is actually best.
And we are not allowed to just assume that inclusion is the best.
An IEP, an individualized education program, is individualized in that sense.
The placement has to be individualized.
And the idea of least restrictive environment, I think, is being misinterpreted and abused to say, well, Inclusion is the least restrictive environment, but the law means that.
IDEA means that on an individual basis.
Is it the least restrictive environment for this particular student?
The other thing that the profession is grappling with right now is that the evidence base for inclusion as an effective practice is coming under fire.
Earlier this year, Douglas Fuchs of Vanderbilt, a very, very highly respected education researcher, released a paper saying the evidence base is very, very shaky and he is currently giving talks on that.
So earlier this year I did a video on the paper and now a lot of people are noticing these talks he's giving on the evidence base for inclusion being kind of weak.
So I think the bottom line that we should keep in mind here, even if we feel very strongly and very emotionally that inclusion is a good thing, and I think inclusion generally is a good thing, We also have to look at whether it is working in terms of learning and in terms of meeting the students' needs.
And if it is, then I think it's worth it.
But I don't think it's the kind of thing that we should just hold on to as an ideology and say, well, that's my religion, basically, is inclusion.
No, this is a practice, and we can choose different practices if it's not working for a particular kid.
And under U.S.
law, we have to.
If there is a setting that is less restrictive for that student and more appropriate for that student, that is the setting the IEP team will pick, and that is the setting that the district needs to offer.
And the district can't just say, well, we do everything inclusion here.
That's not legal.
Let me know what you think.