Katie Hall Core205 Final Paper
Katie Hall Core205 Final Paper
Katie Hall Core205 Final Paper
Inclusive Education
Kathryn Hall
UCID: 10139442
recent years. As diversity and difference within our populations increase, so too does the concept of
ability privilege. This has become increasingly discernable in educational settings, as children who
exhibit certain abilities are included without question, however there continues to be an unwillingness,
and pushback to relinquish jurisdictions to include children of varying abilities (Wolbring, 2014).
Antagonistic views of inclusive education are largely built on the notion that inclusion could have
negative impacts and consequences for children (Tunidor, & York, 1995). The literature, selected for
review collectively sought to impede upon these arguments from adversaries, and appears largely in
support of equitable access to education. The first portion of the report will serve solely as a literature
review, where a plethora of studies outlining findings of effects of inclusive education practices will be
reviewed. Upon review of the literature, I will share my own critical analysis and thoughts on the
content. I will then conclude by offering my own thoughts in relation to larger themes presented within
Review of Literature
Upon reviewing various literatures, it was apparent that inclusive education is a topic
surrounded by immense attention and ongoing controversial debates regarding the potential impacts on
students when implemented. Thus, multiple studies have been conducted to uncover the true impacts
and implications, predominantly seeking to discredit contradictory opinions of researchers, parents, and
educators alike. The specific literatures I reviewed appeared to be written by researchers whom
collectively argued vehemently that inclusive educational practices divulged to be highly beneficial. In
understand the true nature of ability expectation oppression and the ability inequities appearing within
educational sectors. Uncovering strong empirical evidence is needed to substantiate if such claims are
Throughout the literature, there is ample evidence regarding the positive outcomes and
beneficial features inclusive education can have on the academic capacities of students. McLeskey and
academic progress, or lack thereof in reading and math capabilities of children following one year in an
inclusive classroom. The functioning of 71 students with disabilities in inclusive settings was compared
to that of 73 children with disabilities receiving their education in segregated resource rooms. Findings
revealed that students in inclusive settings showed exponentially greater gains in reading levels, by
67% more, than students receiving education in resource rooms (McLeskey & Waldron, 1998). Another
study on the effects of learning through peer-model observation had similar results of positive effects
on academic achievement and cognitive functioning (Charlop, Schreibman & Tryon, 1983).
Researchers studied a group of four children with autism, testing abilities to receptively label items,
under two conditions; one involving a trial and error method, and the other under a modeling condition
where children learned from peer models (Charlop et al., 1983). It was noted after exposure to 20 trials
of peer model observation, children were able to label the objects with 100% accuracy, but in the no-
modeling condition, on average over 32 trials were needed to reach criterion (Charlop et al., 1983).
Researchers concluded the immense superiority of peer models, rather than independent work in
segregated settings, and how inclusive settings promoted the acquisition of academic and cognitive
also becoming an area of increased interest (Garrick Duhaney & Salend, 1999; Giangreco, 1997).
McMillan (2008) reviewed various studies finding with inclusion being implemented, students without
disabilities were also benefitting academically. One criterion-referenced exploratory study, assessing
educational achievement in areas of reading/language arts and mathematics, showed positive results
(Disher, Mathot-Buckner, McDonnell, Mendel, & Thorson, 2003). Results from 324 students without
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 4
disabilities in inclusive settings indicated a small increase in academic performance compared to results
of 221 students whose classes did not include students with disabilities (Disher et al., 2003). Another
study analyzing data collected from 606 individuals found that students without disabilities in inclusive
settings proved to achieve either neutral or more positive results compared to children in non-inclusive
settings, which teachers collectively attributed to additional support and alternative teaching methods
provided in inclusive classrooms (Cole, Majd, & Waldron, 2004). It was concluded that the presence of
students with disabilities did not compromise the performances of other students in the classroom (Cole
et al., 2014). Together these studies give substantial empirical evidence, which researchers argue
corroborates that arguments and concerns of adverse or negative impacts on educational achievement
may be unwarranted, and possibly erroneous (Tunidor & York, 1995; Disher et al., 2003).
Proponents of inclusive education, including many researchers within the review, indicate
education, and specifically inclusive education, involves benefits that reach beyond academics, to offer
a number of non-educational, social, self-conceptual and behavioral beneficial outcomes (Staub &
Peck, 1994; Garrick Duhaney & Salend, 1999, Disher et al., 2003; Barclay, Dupuis, Holmes, Platt &
Shaha, 2007; McMillan, 2008). Tardif and Wiener (2004) completed a study comparing the social and
emotional functioning of 117 children receiving education through multiple diverse service delivery
models. Results revealed that children within the more inclusive placements had more positive social
and emotional functioning, and appeared to score significantly better on all socio-metric and social skill
rating measures in comparison to those in self-contained or resources room placements (Tardif &
Wiener, 2004). Children receiving inclusive in class supports not only had higher self-perceptions of
their own competencies, and were better accepted by their peers, but had fewer teacher-rated problem
behaviors than those reported of students in segregated settings (Tardif & Wiener, 2004).
Many other studies have been replicated under similar hypotheses of inclusive settings
providing beneficial outcomes, such as the researcher Hepler (1998) who was interested in social
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5
interactions, behavioral mannerisms and cognitive proficiencies when children with disabilities were
included. Measures such as role-play tests were administered to assess social status knowledge,
cognitive and behavioral skills, as well as social interactions (Hepler, 1998). Both groups of children
with and without disabilities showed vast improvement from pre to post test in social behavioral
responses, and used fewer negative responses altogether (Hepler, 1998). This particular measure, along
with socio-metric ratings from students, and observational data collected from researchers lead to a
strong proposition that all the children benefitted largely in cognitive and behavioral skills, as well as
improved their ability to positively socially interact (Hepler, 1998). It was concluded that by allowing
children opportunities to observe positive role models and to interact with nondisabled children
(Hepler, 1998, p. 99) they learned constructive behavioral and cognitive skills leading to positive social
interactions.
Another study was employed surrounding partner learning processes to assess effects of
inclusive education in terms of amount of academic responding behaviors which increase chances and
ability for children to attain knowledge, as well as competing behaviors, being responses viewed as
unacceptable or disruptive to learning processes (Allen et al., 2002). Findings revealed that students
had less competing behaviors and a substantial increase in academic responding when engaged in
partner learning in an inclusive classroom rather than independent seatwork learning (Allen et al.
2002). Researchers believed their findings stood to assist in discrediting many concerns and
apprehensions educators and parents had that students with disabilities presences could harm the
learning and behaviors of other children (Allen et al, 2002; Staub & Peck, 1994). Additional positive
results were found in a parent survey, revealing over 80 percent believing inclusive classroom
experiences enhanced their childs social and emotional growth, and over 90 percent of the parents
concluding that having students with disabilities in the class had been an overall positive experience
(Gallucci, Peck, Schwartz, & Staub, 2004). Collectively, these studies appear to support the impetus
behind inclusive education in providing strong empirical, and qualitative evidence which in conclusion
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 6
revealed these settings were highly likely to increase social, communicative, and behavioral skills of
children both with and without disabilities (Katz & Mirenda, 2002).
One highly emerging topic of interest within the literature sought to address the question of
plausible impacts inclusive education can have on perspectives and attitudes of students (Knight,
Sharpe, & York, 1994). Investigators Staub and Peck (1994) grouped the main potential benefits of
their research findings into the categories; reduced fear of human differences, growth in social
cognition, development of personal principles and warm and caring friendships. Numerous students
attributed their reduced fear, and increased comfort around the notion of disability to having had close
interactions with individuals with disabilities within their classrooms (Carlson, Helmstetter, & Peck,
findings of growth in social cognition, newly found sophisticated tolerances of difference and
disability, as well as increased awareness and concern for the needs of their peers with disabilities.
Many of the students expressed experiencing a growth in their personal, moral and ethical principles as
a result of relationships they had created with their peers with disabilities (Carlson et al., 1992).
Researchers concluded the consistency in results proved that exposing children to diversity in inclusive
settings, provided students with a better understanding and tolerance for differences within society
(Knight et al., 1994). Thus, the removal of social prejudice is expected by various researchers to
continue the production of ethics, values of caring, and acceptance, helping to alleviate barriers later in
life, making integration into society easier for children of all abilities (Giangreco, 1997; Katz &
researched, but remains extremely controversial. The specific literature I reviewed approached the
notion of inclusive education utilizing both disability studies and ability studies lenses. Researchers
inquired into the lived reality children of varying abilities face, and continued on to question the
disablement, and segregation experienced by children who have been labeled on false notions as
causative factors of negative academic or behavioral attainment (Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2015).
Researchers discussed the implications linked to these ability expectations, and the ricocheting negative
effects and consequences segregation can have, in preventing truly positive and enriching educational
and social experiences for all children (Burke & Wolbring, 2013). The literature presented represents
only a small fraction of the wealth and breadth of research on inclusive education. The case promoting
beneficial outcomes continues to grow and strengthen, standing to assist in decreasing ableism related
attitudinal and environmental barriers hindering the participation of children of varying abilities.
The purpose behind the literature reviewed was largely to address concerns appearing to be
built upon and governed by negative ability expectations. Many studies emulated in their findings there
were no adverse effects on academic performance and instead many other positive, beneficial outcomes
(Knight et al., 1994; Giangreco, 1997; Disher et al., 2003; Cole et al., 2004; McMillan, 2008). Alone
the empirical evidence presenting positive academic effects is staggering, and it is imperative to
annotate these gains were largely accredited to children having opportunities to observe and interact
with children of varying abilities, whom served as great role models, and motivation for one another
(Charlop et al., 1983). It was noted that within inclusive settings, there is likely additional focus on
academic achievement which I believe motivates children, and truly pushes those with varied abilities
to reach their full potentials, instead of being generalized by lower ability expectations in segregated
settings (Barclay et al., 2007; Myklebust, 2007). A common curriculum for all, providing academically
challenging material, and stimulating environments proved to be far superior, and succeeded in
promoting that all children are valued, highly capable individuals, leading to an upsurge in feelings of
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 8
accomplishment, confidence, and acceptance (McLeskey & Waldron, 1998). I believe inclusive
classrooms give greater prospect for growth as opposed to two separate curriculums, created largely on
the false notion that children with disabilities hinder the learning of other students, proven to be
While it is important to note beneficial academic outcomes, I personally believe there is further
merit and importance in recognizing social and behavioral benefits. I myself am an advocate for
inclusive education, especially since the research shows it heightens development of social skills and
aggregates positive behaviors, effectively preparing children to adapt to life outside the classroom
(Tardif & Wiener, 2004; De Vivo, 2013). I believe education, and socialization during the early years is
key in preparing for later life, and how successfully children will navigate through larger society.
Children are sponges, learning principally by example and experience, thus by exposure to diversity
through inclusive educational practices; children are shown the true reality of the world (McMillan,
2008). As educators and operatives in the disabilities studies field, I believe by not advocating and
pushing for inclusive education, and acceptance of all, we are effectively failing at preparing students
for the real world, and to nurture a more accepting society. In instilling that inclusion and acceptance
from a young age is a natural fact of life, I believe inclusive education aids in effectively lessening
chances of social prejudices, exclusion, and ableist perspectives later on. In fact, Garrick Duhaney &
Salend (1999) concluded in their findings that students in inclusive settings possessed more positive
views of inclusion, which lead to increased acceptance, tolerance of individual differences, and a
greater awareness and sensitivity to others. It was also noted that children in non-inclusive classrooms
were more likely to engage in stereotyping and to hold negative perceptions of diversity (Garrick
Duhaney & Salend, 1999). Thus, it appears segregation makes stigmatization and greater ability
expectations more likely, impacting a sustainable, positive future for people of varied abilities.
We are not born into this world with preconceived notions or ideas regarding differences
already fashioned. What children are exposed to at a young age, and how we teach them, is how I
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9
believe negative biases and stereotypes are created and carried on. When we practice segregation, it
effectively teaches children that social prejudice, and ableism is appropriate, and tolerated (Castaeda
& Peters, 2000). Segregation upholds erroneous stereotypes and biases, and teaches children that
anyone who does not fit species-typical norms, or ability expectations, should be automatically labeled
or segregated (Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2015). Governance of ability expectations through effectively
implementing inclusive education is imperative, which as the literature proves can not only provide
beneficial outcomes within schools, but can unveil a greater ability diverse acceptance (Wolbring &
One of the major things I noticed in assessing various literatures was although the majority of
articles appeared to be largely in support of inclusive education, the language used by these researchers
eluded otherwise at times, and appeared contrary to their standpoints and beliefs. While preaching
themselves used language continually defining children with a disability descriptor, referring to
groupings as children with disabilities, or children without disabilities, instead of just children with
varying abilities. Even though it was perhaps not the researchers intent, the phrases, and terms used at
times stood to reinforce the notion of ableism, which they had initially being attempting to discredit.
This goes to show the immense power language holds, and how even with the best of intentions,
language is often used in ways, which promote the continuation of social and attitudinal discriminatory
While there appear to be many proponents behind inclusive education, there still exist
adversaries whom have yet to come to terms with the long list of benefits inclusive education conveys.
Farrell (2000) remarked that there are typically two arguments used in favor of inclusive education:
socio-political and empirical. The first socio-political argument states inclusion is a matter of all
children having the human right to be educated in the same setting (Farrell, 2000). I noticed within the
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 10
research that opponents stated full support of the socio-political argument, however attacked the
empirical side, stating their concerns were regarding adverse effects on academic achievement, and
negative behavioral tendencies (Peetsma & Rujis, 2009). If these opposing arguments were in fact
based solely on empirical evidence as adversaries claim, instead of a human rights socio-political
argument, there should be no question left on the subject, especially with such substantial amounts of
empirical evidence showing no adverse effects from literature I reviewed. However, opposing, aversive
arguments still exist to this day, even after researchers have made a resounding case for inclusive
education. Thus, it leaves me to question that opponents of inclusive education still subjectively partake
in an ableistic perspective, or tendencies, and are culpable of ability expectation oppression. The
literature proves on countless occasions the various benefits of inclusion; thus, I believe any continued
argument against inclusive education is a result of stereotypes and bias against the notion of disability
or variabilitys. The fact that such considerable amounts of research and empirical evidence is needed
to prove to opponents that anything varying from what is considered species-typical norms, should be
included shows that ability diversity is still looked negatively upon. The persistent existence of such
controversy around ability diverse children being included in a single classroom shows the ways
society instinctually governs a favoritism for certain abilities and how we truly are in an age of an
ability expectation and ableism creep (Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2015, para. 14).
As the social model of disability states, and what I truly believe, is that disability is largely
socially constructed and primarily exists in the environments we subsist in. The amount of literature
being solely devised with the purpose of substantiating the merit of inclusion, rather than acceptance of
these practices without question, confirms we unfortunately appear to live largely within an ableist
culture and society. Consequently, many young children are unfortunately missing out on the
multifaceted benefits of inclusive practices. Researchers and educators appear so vastly worried about
the possible impacts of inclusive education, they are failing to recognize and appreciate that the facts
and findings show their concerns are largely unwarranted. I wholly believe, even more so after
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11
reviewing the literature that inclusion not only gives all children better chances at performing
academically, but also gives them crucial life skills to live a successful, fulfilling life. The validity of
the argument for inclusive education has been largely established, and I believe there should be little
room for question or controversy to remain because everyone, no matter their ability, deserves to be
accepted and included. I see it as my duty, in being involved in the disability studies field, to continue
to engage with and expose the ability expectations evident within educational settings and society, and
to impede upon these notions and beliefs (Wolbring & Yumakulov, 2015).
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 12
References
Allen, C., Mathot-Buckner, C., McDonnell, J., & Thorson, N. (2000). The effects of partner learning
during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their peers. Journal of Behavioral
Barclay, J. W., Dupuis, B., Holmes, S. D., Platt, M., & Shaha, S. H. (2007). Does inclusion help
students: Perspectives from regular education and students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.naset.org/782.0.html
Burke, B., & Wolbring, G. (2013). Reflecting on education for sustainable development through two
10.3390/su5062327
Carlson, P., Helmstetter, E., & Peck, C. A. (1992). Parent and Teacher Perceptions of Outcomes for
Hackman, M. L. Peters,& X. Ziga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 319
Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., & Tryon, A. S. (1983). Learning through observation: The effects of
peer modeling on acquisition and generalization in autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child
http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2004)42<136:APOSAI>2.0.CO;2
De Vivo, M. (2013, May 21). How inclusion can benefit special needs children socially. Retrieved from
http://thesocialexpress.com/how-inclusion-can-benefit-special-needs-children-socially/
Disher, S., Mathot-Buckner, C., McDonnell, J., Mendel, J., & Thorson, N. (2003), The achievement of
students with developmental disabilities and their peers without disabilities in inclusive settings:
An exploratory study. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(3), 224-236. Retrieved from
http://mdestream.mde.k12.ms.us/sped/ToolKit/Articles/Inclusion_General/McDonnel.pdf
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International Journal
Gallucci, C., Peck, C. A., Schwartz, I., & Staub, D. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of
inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
Garrick Duhaney, L. M., & Salend, S. J. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without
disabilities and their educators. Remedial & Special Education, 20, 114-126.
doi:10.1177/074193259902000209
Giangreco, M. F. (1997). Key lessons learned about inclusive education: Summary of the 1996 schonell
memorial lecture. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44(3), 193-
peers in a school setting. Early Child Development and Care, 147, 99-115.
doi:10.1080/0300443981470110
Katz, J., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in general education
Katz, J., & Mirenda, P. (2002). Including students with developmental disabilities in general education
classrooms: social benefits. International Journal of Special Education, 17(2), 25-35. Retrieved
from http://www.internationalsped.com/magazines_articles/172full.pdf#page=27
Knight, J., Sharpe, M. N., & York, J. L. (1994). Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of
classmates without disabilities: A preliminary study. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5),
McCarty, K. (2006). Full inclusion: The benefits and disadvantages of inclusive schooling. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496074.pdf
McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with
mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395-405. doi:
10.1177/001440299806400308
McMillan, N. M. (2008). Inclusive education: The benefits and the obstacles: Education and Human
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1455&context=ehd_theses
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15
Murray-Seegert, C. (1989). Nasty Girls, Thugs, and Humans Like Us: Social Relations Between
Severely Disabled and Nondisabled Students in High School. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Myklebust, J. O. (2007). Diverging paths in upper secondary education: Competence attainment among
students with special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11, 215-
Peetsma, T. T. D., & Rujis, N. M. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? The Inclusive
leadership/dec94/vol52/num04/What-Are-the-Outcomes-for-Nondisabled-Students.aspx
Tardif, C. Y., & Wiener, J. (2004). Social and emotional functioning of children with learning
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2004.00086.x/epdf
Tunidor, M., & York, J. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators,
parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 31-44.
doi: 10.1177/154079699502000104
Wolbring, G. (2014). Ability studies: A field to analyse social justice issues and identities of humans,
http://www.crds.org/research/faculty/criticaljunctiontalk3.pdf
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 16
Wolbring, G., & Yumakulov, S. (2015). Education through an ability studies lens. Retrieved from
http://www.inklusion-online.net/index.php/inklusion-online/article/view/278/261