The Goal of Inclusion Has to Be Supporting Learning, Not Just Physical Placement
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder argues that true inclusion means ensuring students are actually learning in their placement, not just physically present in a general education classroom.
Key Takeaways
- Placement isn't the goal — learning is - Being in a gen ed classroom without learning is worse than being in a specialized setting where you thrive
- Least restrictive means most effective - The 'least restrictive environment' should be the one where the student learns best
- Inclusion without support is abandonment - Placing a student in gen ed without adequate services isn't inclusion; it's neglect
Transcript
For inclusion to be a legitimate special education service model, it has to come with support.
And so many of the teachers that I've heard from about inclusion say, in my district, there really is no support.
Sometimes I'll have multiple students in one class who have IEPs and my class is supposed to be their inclusion class, but there's no support coming with those students.
There's no support for those students.
And I think we've got to be a little bit flexible in our thinking about inclusion support, but the support has to be there or else we're not following an IEP, right?
There can be things that do not require an additional staff member to be in the classroom.
There can be types of support for vocabulary, pre-reading.
There may be things that students do with a special education teacher or para before class or after class to help them succeed with the in-class materials.
It doesn't always have to be that there's a person coming with them, but the support needs to be real.
And if it's not real, I have to ask, what are we doing here?
Why are we saying that inclusion is a special education service delivery model or a placement and yet not providing students the special education services they need?
I mean, the whole idea is that they are getting some sort of special support in order to help them meet expectations.
And I believe in inclusion.
I think inclusion can be a good thing.
But a lot of people hear that and say, what are you talking about?
Inclusion is terrible.
And the reason they're saying that is because inclusion is not supported in their context.
And if inclusion is an attempt to save money, I think it is pretty much never going to work.
Because think about the numbers, right?
Is it more efficient to have a resource room where all the students who need support in that particular subject come at one time to work with one teacher and get intensive help in a short period of time?
Is that more efficient or less efficient than having a student here and a student there and different people have to go out and work with different teachers to support those kids.
Well, I think the inclusion model is generally going to be less efficient, less cost-effective, so it's not going to be a way for districts to save money.
Now, it may be a very good way to ensure that every student gets to learn in their least restrictive environment, which they're entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I think inclusion can be the best approach for a lot of students, but it has to be supported, and it can't be primarily intended to save money, because done well, it doesn't do that.
Let me know what you think.
Thank you.