PROFILES & PERSPECTIVES

Inclusion versus Full Inclusion by Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs WHAT IS INCLUSION? these best practices, suggesting that even knowledgeable Inclusionists believe that regular classroom teachers and and dedicated teachers cannot address the special in- special educators can help children with disabilities ac- structional needs of all children in the regular classroom. quire important skills, knowledge, and behaviors that, for many, will facilitate high school (or even college) gradua- WHAT IS FULL INCLUSION? tion and a good job. Such achievement depends on a con- Full inclusionists believe the primary job of educators is to tinuum of special education placements, which includes help children with disabilities establish friendships with the regular classroom. nondisabled persons. Moreover, educators should (1) help In principle, each special education placement on the change stereotypic thinking about disabilities among nor- continuum offers specialized, individualized, and inten- mally developing children and (2) help children with dis- sive instruction that is continuously evaluated for its ef- abilities develop social skills, which will enable them to in- fectiveness. Teachers in these special settings are instruc- teract more effectively within a broad network of tional experts. To the fullest extent appropriate, these acquaintances, co-workers, family members, and friends. special educators and their students work on the general Friendship making, attitude change, and social skills de- education curriculum and understand the level of acade- velopment can only occur, say full inclusionists, in regular mic accomplishment and social behavior necessary for classes for the simple reason that these objectives require success in regular classrooms. the presence of age-appropriate, nondisabled children. Nevertheless, although classrooms can and should be In addition, full inclusionists claim that the place- made more flexible and responsive to a broad range of ment of special-needs children in regular classrooms children’s instructional needs, there is a limit to how must be full time (e.g., Lipsky & Gartner, 1991; Stain- much a classroom can be expected to change and how back & Stainback, 1992). First, only full-time placement many students any teacher can responsibly teach. First, confers legitimacy on special-needs children’s member- the number of children in regular classrooms is large. ship and place in regular classrooms. Second, as long as And second, the students in the regular classrooms are special education placements exist, educators may use not all performing on grade level. Researchers have found them as dumping grounds for the difficult-to-teach stu- few teachers who differentiate their instruction to ad- dent. Full inclusionists predict that by eliminating spe- dress this broad range of academic achievement (Baker & cial education placements, classroom teachers will have Zigmond, 1990; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992; McIn- to transform their classes into settings responsive to all tosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993). Instead, children. However, this will require fundamental changes many teachers present the same lesson and instructional in the roles of special and regular educators and the en- materials to all students. tire teaching and learning process. These changes include When teachers do implement research-backed in- a radical constructivist vision of teaching and learning structional methods such as cooperative learning or and a concomitant de-emphasis, even rejection, of stan- classwide peer tutoring, their responsiveness to diversity dard curricula, directed instruction, and accountability increases as does student achievement, including the standards. “From a holistic, constructivist perspective, all achievement of many special-needs children. Even so, children simply engage in a process of learning as much some children with disabilities typically fail to respond to as they can in a particular subject area; how much and

80

# 39162 Cust: PH/OH Au: Heward Pg. No. 80 C/M/Y/K/PMS Title: Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Ed. Short / Normal / Long COMMUNICATIONS,LTD. exactly what they learn will depend upon their back- Accommodating all in one place. Full inclusionists have grounds, interests, and abilities” (Stainback & Stainback, an unquestioned belief in the capacity of regular education 1992, p. 72). to accommodate all children. However, the limits of the regular classroom and the need for a variety of special ed- MANY CHILDREN, MANY NEEDS ucation placements are recognized even in Vermont, a state with nearly double the national average of students with How does one explain the dramatic differences between disabilities in regular classrooms and long known as a the inclusionists and the full inclusionists? They advocate leader in inclusive education (Sack, 1997). Several years for different children with different needs. Most inclusion- ago, Rutland, Vermont, school officials began The Success ists speak for children with sensory impairments and high- School, a separate program for disruptive students in incidence disabilities such as learning disabilities, behav- grades 6 through 12. According to Rutland’s director of ior disorders, and mild mental retardation. Most full special services, Ellie McGarry, the goal for most students inclusionists represent children with severe disabilities. So is to return to the regular classroom full time. For others it when full inclusionists argue for regular class placements is gaining the skills necessary to find a job. A handful of for children with disabilities, they are motivated by the students, Ms. McGarry said, “wouldn’t be in school at all if concern that “their” children make friends, influence atti- it weren’t for [The] Success [School]” (Sack, 1997, p. 6). tudes about disability, and improve social skills. If the chil- The district’s superintendent, David Wolk, says The Suc- dren’s learning of academic, functional, or vocational skills cess School is “a common-sense way to help the inclusion suffer, this is a sacrifice many full inclusionists seem will- pendulum settle in the middle. It’s clear this is the best en- ing to make. Inclusionists, by contrast, are primarily con- vironment for those children” (p. 3). cerned that “their” children get appropriate academic in- Special education accountability. We acknowledge struction; if this is most likely to happen in a resource that there are major problems with how special education room, separate class, or even a special school, most inclu- is practiced in many school districts. For example, few sionists say, “So be it.” special educators document their effectiveness in teach- ing students with disabilities. And separate special edu- WHY THE FULL INCLUSION MOVEMENT WILL cation placements become terminal assignments in the NOT SUCCEED educational careers of too many children. There is insuf- There are several reasons why the full inclusion movement ficient evidence that special education teachers facilitate will not succeed. movement along the continuum of special education ser- Uncompromising and presumptive. To ensure a place vices so that children in special day schools, for example, in regular classrooms for children with severe disabilities, transition into resource rooms or those in resource rooms full inclusionists have pressed for an elimination of spe- reintegrate into regular classrooms, where eventually cial education placements for all children with disabili- they may be decertified. ties. Their antipathy toward special education place- For too long, accountability in special education has ments is based on a conviction that, as long as such been defined in terms of process—for example, by programs exist, children with severe disabilities will most whether school districts can produce legally correct IEPs. likely be assigned to and confined in them. They pre- Our field, however, is in the midst of redefining account- sume to speak on behalf of parents and professional ad- ability in terms of student progress in academic, social, vocates of deaf children, blind children, and children and school-behavior domains. Although this redefinition with learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and mild will be difficult to accomplish, it is an important en- mental retardation. This puts full inclusionists in direct deavor. We are confident that time will tell that student conflict with many in the disability community. For ex- progress requires options in instruction, curricula, mate- ample, Bernard Rimland (1993b), a well-known advo- rials, and placements. cate and father of a child with autism, writes: “I have no quarrel with [full] inclusionists if they are content to in- Douglas Fuchs and Lynn Fuchs are professors of special education at sist upon inclusion for their children. But when they try Vanderbilt University. Their research interests focus on developing classroom- based techniques such as curriculum-based measurement and peer-assisted to force me and other unwilling parents to dance to their learning strategies that strengthen the academic performance and social inte- tune, I find it highly objectionable and quite intolerable. gration of students with and without disabilities. They are the coeditors of the Parents need options” (p. 3). Journal of Special Education.

81

# 39162 Cust: PH/OH Au: Heward Pg. No. 81 C/M/Y/K/PMS Title: Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Ed. Short / Normal / Long COMMUNICATIONS,LTD.