14 Global Education Review 1(1)

Two Perspectives on Inclusion In The United States

Curt Dudley-Marling Boston College

Mary Bridget Burns Boston College

Abstract The history of schooling for students with disabilities in the United States is marked by exclusion and, until the passage of the Education for All Children Act in the 1970s, a substantial number of students with disabilities were denied free public education and many more were poorly served by public schools. The requirement that all children be educated in the “least restrictive environment” gradually allowed many students with disabilities to be educated alongside their peers without disabilities and today a majority of students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their school days in regular classroom settings. Still, the meaning of inclusion is bitterly disputed, fueled in large part by two contrasting views of disability. This paper discusses these two views – a deficit stance and a social constructivist perspective – and the effects of these views on the meaning of inclusion, the purpose of inclusion, and how inclusive education is achieved.

Keywords inclusion, equity, deficit perspective on inclusion, social constructivist stance on inclusion

Introduction However, the history of education for students As we began writing this paper, the US with disabilities in the United States has, until Department of Education issued a clarification relatively recently, been marked by exclusion, regarding the legal obligations of school not inclusion. Prior to the enactment of the districts to provide access to sports for landmark Education for All Children Act (also students with disabilities. According to the known as Public Law 94-142), only one in five new guidelines, school districts are “required students with disabilities in the US were to provide a qualified student with a disability educated in public schools. Moreover, many an opportunity to benefit from the school states had laws on their books that explicitly district’s program equal to that of students excluded many students with disabilities from without disabilities” (in Pilon, 2013, p. D5). public schooling including children who had This ruling has been hailed by some as a ______significant moment in the movement to Corresponding Author: Curt Dudley-Marling, Boston College Lynch School of include students with disabilities into the Education, Campion Hall,140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 normal life of US schools (Pilon, 2013). Email: [email protected]

Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, New York. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Dudley-Marling, Curt & Burns, Mary Bridget (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in The United States. Global Education Review, 1 (1). 14-31

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 15 been labeled deaf, blind, emotionally on disabilities that situates disabilities in the disturbed, Education Programs, 2007). Other minds and bodies of students. We then states “permitted” public school programs for consider the goals and rationale for inclusion certain groups of students with disabilities but that derive from this perspective as well as the did not require it. Before the implementation means for achieving inclusion within a deficit of Public Law 94-142, New York State, for framework. Next we take up a social example, permitted school districts to provide constructivist view of disabilities that situates an education to students with IQs below 50 disabilities in the complex interaction between (Harrison, 1958). In the early 1970s, over one naturally occurring human differences and the million children with disabilities in the US sociocultural contexts of schooling. We then were completely excluded from public discuss the goals and rationale for inclusion education and another 3.5 million were not that emerge from a social constructivist receiving appropriate services (Martin, Martin, framework and how inclusion is achieved from & Terman, 1996). this perspective. We give more space to the This situation changed with the social constructivist perspective because it passage of PL 94-142 which mandated that all may be less familiar to many readers and students with disabilities be provided with “a because we find this stance more persuasive free and appropriate education in the least ourselves. restrictive environment” (Osgood, 2005, p. 105). Today nearly all students with History of Inclusion in The disabilities spend at least part of their day United States being educated alongside children without The history of special education is typically disabilities (31st Annual Report to Congress on understood in terms of the inexorable the Implementation of the movement toward the integration of students Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with disabilities into regular education settings 2009). For some educators this represents a (Ainscow, 1999). Yet, the history of special triumph of inclusive policies. Others view the education in the US has been marked mainly increased presence of students with by segregation and exclusion. In his History of disabilities in regular educational settings Inclusion in the United States, Robert Osgood merely as a step toward truly inclusive schools (2005) observed that, until relatively recently, (Allen, 2006). These positions reflect a significant proportion of students with fundamental differences in the meaning of disabilities in the US, especially students with inclusion and the means for achieving intellectual disabilities, were considered inclusive schools. Fleshing out the meaning of uneducable. These students were completely inclusion in an American context is the aim of excluded from public schooling. Even those this paper. students with disabilities who were considered We begin by offering a brief history of to be “educable” were typically segregated inclusion in the United States drawing heavily within schools since it was presumed that on Robert Osgood’s (2005) historical review of these students had unique educational needs inclusion in the US. We then turn our requiring the services of specially trained attention to explicating two positions on professionals. Historically educators resisted inclusion that dominate discussions of the integration of “exceptional” children who, inclusion in the United States. The first because they did not fit into the rigid position we discuss is the deficit stance structures of American schooling, “overtaxed (sometimes referred to as the medical model) the efficient operation of schools” (p. 24). The

16 Global Education Review 1(1) assumption was that the inclusion of students much of it justifiable?” Lloyd Dunn (1968) into regular educational settings would argued that “special education in its present demand so much attention from teachers as to form is obsolete and unjustifiable from the have a detrimental effect on the education of point of view of the pupils so placed” (Dunn, students without disabilities. Osgood cites 1968, p. 6). Dunn was particularly concerned instances of school superintendents who about the overrepresentation of minority concluded that it was worth the higher costs of students in special education classes, a educating students with intellectual problem that persists in the US (see Harry & disabilities in segregated schools or Klingner, 2005). classrooms given the negative effect their Parental activism in the 1960s, along presence would have on the learning of with court challenges to the practice of “normal” children. denying many children with disabilities a free As early as the late 19th century there public education, led to a rapid expansion of were, however, a few exceptions to the pattern special education within public schools. For of segregation and exclusion of students with example, in Pennsylvania Association for disabilities. Osgood cites, for example, the Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of cases of Batavia, New York and Newton, Pennsylvania (1971) a group of parents of Massachusetts where assistant or unassigned whose children had been identified as teachers provided support for students with mentally retarded successfully challenged a disabilities within regular classrooms. Still, state law that absolved school districts of Osgood emphasizes that the dominant trend in responsibility for educating students deemed well into the 20th century was the removal of to be “uneducable” or “untrainable” (Osgood, students with disabilities from the regular 2005, p. 104). The result of the case was that classroom. In many cases, students with the state of Pennsylvania acknowledged its disabilities continued to be excluded from responsibility to provide all students with a public schooling altogether although some free, appropriate education. Parents in the states did pass enabling legislation during this District of Columbia also challenged the time that permitted, but did not require, exclusion of students with severe disabilities school districts to educate certain categories of from public schooling resulting in a decision students with disabilities within public schools. that the District of Columbia schools had to Despite the continuing pattern of provide a free, appropriate education to all exclusion and segregation of students with students regardless of the severity of their disabilities there were occasional calls that disabilities (Osgood, 2005). these students have at least social contact with The activism 1960s and 1970s on children without disabilities. Some went even behalf of children with disabilities – including further. Osgood (2005) quotes principal and the normalization and deinstitutionalization Illinois Council of Exceptional Children movements – culminated in the landmark member Edward Stullken who wrote in 1950s, Education for All Children Act (Public Law “in general, it is best not to segregate any 94-142) passed by the US Congress in 1975. individual by placement in a special group, if Public Law 94-142, eventually renewed as the he may receive as good or better training in a Individuals with Disabilities Education Act normal group of pupils” (p. 45). Others began (IDEA), guaranteed a free education for all to question the efficacy of special class students with disabilities. PL 94-142 also placement in general. In his classic article, required school districts to provide students “Special education for the mildly retarded – Is with disabilities with Individualized Education

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 17

Programs (IEP) to insure that these students & Gartner, 1989 for an overview of the Regular received an education program appropriate to Education Initiative). their particular needs. IDEA goes further by Michalko (2008) observes that, specifying that students with disabilities be despite the intention of PL 94-142 that all educated in the least restrictive environment students with disabilities be educated in the (LRE). least restrictive environment, since the passage of the Education for All Children Act To the maximum extent appropriate, there has been an “unfettered children with disabilities, including growth of overwhelmingly segregated children in public or private institutions arrangements” (p. 2133). Still, the most recent or other care facilities, are educated with data indicate that the vast majority of students children who are not disabled, and with disabilities in the US ages 6-21 spend at special classes, separate schooling, or least part of their educational day in regular other removal of children with education settings. As of 2008, over 57% of disabilities from the regular educational students with disabilities spent at least 80% of environment occurs only when the their school day inside regular classrooms nature or severity of the disability of a while just over 5% were completely excluded child is such that education in regular from regular school placements (31st Annual classes with the use of supplementary Report to Congress on the Implementation of aids and services cannot be achieved the Individuals with Disabilities Eduation Act, satisfactorily. (quoted in Beratan, 2006) 2009). In preschool settings nearly one-third of students with disabilities are included in Still, while many of children with “regular” early childhood settings as their disabilities moved into public schools they primary placement and nearly the same often remained segregated in special percentage participate in segregated settings education classes (Osgood, 2005). with another 15% spending some time in both Osgood points to the emergence of the regular and special education settings (Odom, Disability Rights movement in the 1970s and Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). Of course, these 1980s in the increasing demand for inclusive data say nothing about the quality of these placements as a matter of civil rights. The placements in pre-school and K-12 settings. mid-1980s and early 1990s were also marked One serious threat to the trend toward by the emergence of the Regular Education inclusion of students with disabilities in Initiative (REI) that called for ending the regular education settings may be found in the separate special education system and, instead, charter school movement. In a review of the “turn[ing] the spotlight to increasing the effects of free-market schooling on students capabilities of the regular school environment, with disabilities, Dudley-Marling and Baker the mainstream, to meet the needs of all (2012) report that the available evidence students” (Stainback & Stainback, 1984, p. indicates that students with disabilities, 110). Part of the problem according to especially students with more severe advocates of the REI was the presumption that disabilities, are significantly underserved by special education held the expertise for charter schools. Moreover, many charters educating students with disabilities which enroll few, if any, students with disabilities. often led regular educators to abdicate any Dudley-Marling and Baker conclude that, in responsibility for teaching students with the context of free-market schooling with the disabilities (see collection of essays in Kerzner emphasis on test scores and costs, students

18 Global Education Review 1(1) with disabilities may have less value than people possess low intelligence with most students who raise test scores and cost less to people closer to average intelligence. Other educate. Charters, vouchers systems, and human traits and abilities (e.g., vision, hearing, other free market initiatives represent a physical prowess, the ability to do math, read, serious long-term threat to inclusive practices. write, etc.) are assumed to distribute in a School choice, in the name of the free market, similar fashion1. When people differ “empowers each group to opt out of engaging sufficiently from the norm on these various with the others. Exclusivity is not a by-product traits and abilities (generally two standard of school choice, but a primary goal (Valle, deviations above or below the mean) they are Connor, Broderick, Bejoian, & Baglieri, 2011, p. considered “exceptional” (or abnormal). The 2291). focus of special education is generally on those Despite these worries about the future students situated on the lower reaches of the impact of market-based schooling practices, normal curve, students who are presumed overall, the evidence seems to indicate deficient in one or more skills or abilities remarkable progress toward inclusion since necessary for success in school and, often, the the enactment of PL-142. In less than 40 years, world outside of school. These children have US schools have gone from a time when many disabilities. children with disabilities were completely This deficit gaze situates school failure excluded from public education to the current in the minds and bodies of students who are situation in which all students with disabilities presumed to be deficient in skills and abilities receive a free, appropriate public education associated with school success. As Miller and most spend a significant portion of their (1993) puts it, “the philosophy of deficiency school day in classrooms alongside peers takes the view that those whose performance without disabilities. However, as we argue deviates from the majority lack some critical below, the significance you attach to these attribute, ability, or potential” (Miller, 1993, p. developments depends on how you define 59). Students with learning disabilities, for disability (i.e., where disabilities reside) and instance, are viewed as deficient in particular your goals for inclusion. In the following skills underlying success in reading, math, section we discuss the meaning and goals for writing and other school subjects. Moreover, it inclusion from the perspective of the deficit (or is assumed that these deficiencies are medical) model that has long dominated neurological in origin, literally in the heads of special education. students (Hammill, Leigh, McNutt, & Larsen, 1981). Similarly, from a deficit perspective A Deficit Perspective On intellectual disabilities are defined as cognitive Inclusion deficits and conditions like autism are understood in terms of social and linguistic Special education is undergirded by deficiencies. Even students with physical and assumptions of normality – and abnormality. sensory impairments are defined in terms of Specifically, it is widely assumed that human lacking the visual, auditory, or motor traits and abilities tend to cluster around a capacities possessed by “normal” children. mean, that is, the norm(al). Some people are From a deficit perspective, the very tall, for example, and others are very overarching goal of special education is to short, but most people tend toward “average.” provide students with the skills needed to In much the same way it is assumed that a function normally in a normal environment2 relatively small proportion of people are highly – at least as far as possible. There are three intelligent and roughly the same proportion of

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 19 complementary approaches special educators means for achieving inclusion. We take up typically employ to achieve this goal. One these topics in the following sections. approach is to identify and then remediate deficiencies in student learning. A typical The Meaning of Inclusion response to a reading disability, for example, From a traditional (deficit) special education is to identify the specific reading skills in perspective, the meaning of inclusion follows which students are deficient and then the legal requirement that students with remediate these deficits through the disabilities be educated in the “least restrictive application of appropriate reading methods environment” (LRE). The assumption is that (Bartolome, 1994). A second approach is the regular classroom is the LRE for every compensatory skill training in which students child but not necessarily the most appropriate are taught strategies for overcoming – or placement for all children (Hyatt & Filler, compensating for – their deficiencies. For 2011). The regular classroom is the example, a student with a severe reading appropriate placement for students with disability might be taught alternative disabilities if they are able to function in the strategies for gathering information. A third regular classroom without significantly approach seeks to assist students with altering the regular education curriculum or disabilities by making environmental and student expectations (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). curricular accommodations. A student with a If students are not able learn the regular reading disability, for instance, may be given curriculum with supports, then their more time on tests or have certain materials performance in class is taken as evidence that read to them. the regular classroom is not the appropriate Remedial teaching, compensatory placement for them (see Ferri, 2012). skills training, and the provision of Following the principle that the regular accommodations offer different, but classroom is not always the most appropriate complementary, means for supporting setting for all students with disabilities all of students with disabilities so that they can the time, in many parts of the US inclusion is achieve a measure of success in and out of “procedurally defined as a student with an school. However, in the context of deficit identified disability, spending greater than thinking, these approaches share the 80% of his or her school day in a general assumption that the problem(s) reside in the education classroom in proximity to student, that is, it is part of the student’s nondisabled peers” (Baglieri et al., 2011, pp. makeup and strategies must be brought to 2125-2126). bear to overcome students’ innate deficiencies. From a deficit perspective, inclusion is It is further assumed that it takes specially linked to a service delivery model including trained professional to address the uncommon the technical implementation of a set of needs of students with disabilities – the research-based practices (Baglieri et al., 2011; primary rationale for special education. Ferguson & Nusbaum, 2012). As Liasidou These assumptions about the nature (2010) describes it, “the focus is on enabling of students with disabilities that emerge from disabled students to ‘overcome’ barriers to a deficit stance inform a particular position on learning and participation by devising inclusion including what inclusion means, the ‘specialist’ educational measures and rationale for including students with interventions . . . intended to respond to disabilities in regular classrooms, and the students’ right to education” (p. 171).

20 Global Education Review 1(1)

The Rationale for Inclusion/Exclusion Rinaldo, 2010). It is also argued that the The principle of educating students in the least inclusion of students with disabilities in restrictive environment is about exclusion – regular classrooms, by demanding students for whom the regular classroom is disproportionate attention from teachers, will not the appropriate placement – as much as it negatively affect the education of students is about inclusion. Therefore, the rationale for without disabilities (Grider, 1995). the LRE model tends to focus on justifying the In general, advocates of educating claim that it is in the best interest of children students with disabilities in the least with and without disabilities – as well as restrictive environment (which is often not the regular classroom teachers – that many regular classroom) argue that what matters children with disabilities need to be excluded most is the quality of instruction provided for from regular classroom setting for at least students with disabilities, not where this some of the time and that some children with instruction is provided (e.g., Fuchs & Fuchs, disabilities be excluded from the regular 1994). Responding to critics of LRE who argue classroom entirely. The focus on the that exclusion of any child is inherently unjust inappropriateness of the regular education (see below) supporters of LRE make the point setting for at least some children with that the provision of appropriate instruction in disabilities is, in part, a response to those who whatever environment is best for students are seen as arguing for the full inclusion in the with and without disabilities is fair and just. regular classroom of all students with Gallagher (1994) asserts that fairness "does disabilities, including students with severe not consist of educating all children in the disabilities (see, for example, Anastasiou & same place at the same time [and with the Kauffman, 2011). same curriculum] but in ensuring that the Generally, the argument for the claim student has basic needs met and is traveling that the regular classroom is not always the toward a well-thought-out career and a most appropriate settings for students with satisfying life style" (p.528). From this disabilities focuses on the unique needs of perspective, seeking inclusion at the perceived students and the inadequacies of the regular expense of effective instruction by thrusting classroom environment. Students with students into environments for which they are disabilities, it is argued, require the support of unprepared – and which are unprepared for specially trained teachers who possess them – is neither fair nor just (Anastasiou & specialized knowledge that enables them to Kauffman, 2011). provide appropriate instruction geared to the particular needs of individual students Implementing Inclusion from a Deficit (Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011; Kilanowski- Perspective Press, Foote & Rinaldo, 2010). Regular For those taking a deficit stance on classroom teachers, on the other hand, are disabilities inclusion focuses on best assumed to lack the specialized knowledge and instructional practices in the least restrictive training necessary to meet the needs of environment which typically means at least students with disabilities. Even in cases where some time spent outside the regular teachers possess the necessary training, large classroom. This process includes the class sizes and inflexible curricula make it diagnosis of children’s learning problems (i.e., difficult for regular classroom teachers to disabilities) in order to determine the most accommodate the unique needs of students appropriate learning environment along a with disabilities (Kilanowski-Press, Foote & continuum of services ranging from totally

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 21

separate schools and classrooms at one end of restrictive environment often includes an the continuum to in-class support at the emphasis on students’ emotional development other end (Hyatt & Filler, 2011). Response-to- as well as academics, helping students learn Intervention (RTI), for example, provides how to form friendships with their peers, for several “tiers” of support for students with example, as they are often “deficient” in social disabilities based on how students respond to skills (Narian, 2011). various instructional interventions (see Ferri, Devore, Miolo, and Hader (2011) 2012). The diagnosis and evaluation process provide an illustrative example of a typical also enables special education professionals deficit-based inclusion process in their case to select the most effective instructional study of one preschool child’s experience with strategies to remediate students’ deficits Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and least based on the assessed needs of individual restrictive environments. The special students with disabilities. In this framing, education teacher, the early childhood teacher, students’ progress is marked by their specialists, and consultants came together movement along a continuum of services. with the little boy’s mother to design an IEP This model also offers a role for parents who that would enable him to make friends and are expected to be included in the creation of acquire some of the skills of a typical preschool Individual Education Plans (IEP) that are curriculum, skills in which he was thought to intended to insure that students’ placement be deficient. The researchers emphasized the and instruction is appropriate to their need for ‘buy in’ from all the parties involved, individual needs (Narian, 2011). as well as the need to trust each other’s In general, the LRE approach to expertise, including that of the mother. The inclusion, underpinned by deficit thinking, researchers found that this process was most emphasizes technical solutions to the problem effective when four key steps were followed. of disabilities. This typically includes First, the group needed to build relationships specialized instruction tailored to the needs of with each other as they determined the roles students with disabilities with some attention and responsibilities of each member of the IEP to improving student behavior (Causton- team. Second, the team needed data in order Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, & Cosier, 2011); to assess the boy’s current abilities, which they in-class modifications of methods and gathered from the preschool as well as his materials (Murphy, 1996; Scanlon & Baker, family. Third, building upon his current 2012) including the creation of distraction-free abilities, the team needed to establish environments (Causton-Theoharis, et al., functional goals and strategies to mark the 2011); training in special education for regular boy’s progress. And finally, the team needed classroom teachers (Osgood, 2005); and, co- to apply these strategies as they monitored his teaching (regular and special education progress. Throughout the process, the team teachers (Scanlon & Baker, 2012). Universal wanted to design concrete, specific, almost Design for Learning is increasingly used to prescriptive recommendations for the boy’s allow students with disabilities to more easily cognitive and emotional development (Devore access the regular class curriculum without et al, 2011). This young boy received an reducing the demands of the curriculum (Hunt education designed to directly address his & Andreasen, 2011) while helping students perceived deficiencies (or disabilities). His develop communication skills in a “natural” education in his inclusive setting introduced manner (Hart & Whalon, 2011). Supporting him into the community in a gradual fashion students with disabilities in the least by supporting his skills in the least restrictive

22 Global Education Review 1(1) setting; designing, implementing and If learning resides outside people’s adjusting a specialized curriculum; and, heads, that is, in “people, procedures, measuring improvements in his behavior over practices, events, and structures,” so must time. Success was measured in small victories, learning problems. Gergen (1990) offers the such as when the boy was able to interact with following analysis of learning failure: his classmates and neighborhood children, a goal his mother in particular wanted to see for By and large we may view the common her son. practice of holding single individuals The emphasis on technical solutions responsible for achievements or deficits to disabilities and the emphasis on “best in human understanding as an exercise practices” as determined by scientifically- in practical rhetoric. In the same way based research (see, for example, Anastasiou & that it is inappropriate to allocate depth Kauffman, 2011) contrasts sharply with the of insight to single scientists, authors, social constructivist stance on inclusion which philosophers, or statesmen, it is also stresses structural reform over the individual problematic to discredit failing remediation. students . . . for their failure in understanding. . . . Individuals are A Social Constructivist Stance On constituents of a complex array of Inclusion relationships, and it is inappropriate from the present standpoint to Theory and research in disciplines such as disembed their actions from the cultural psychology (e.g., Cole, 1996; Gergen, relational sequence of which they are a 1990), sociolinguistics (e.g., Gee, 1996), part. (p. 587) feminist studies (e.g., Heilbrun, 1988), and anthropology (e.g., Geertz, 1979; McDermott, As McDermott (1993) explains it, no one 1993) contradict the common-sense idea that can be disabled on their own. It takes a learning resides “in the heads” of students community of people doing just the right (Luke & Freebody, 1997). These various things in the right time and place for a student disciplinary perspectives indicate that learning to be identified as disabled. Consider the does not reside in the minds of autonomous following analogy to football inspired by individuals as much as it dwells in activities Mehan (1993). Crossing the goal line counts as and cultural practices situated in the context a touchdown only in the context of an activity of human relations and institutions (Gergen, recognized as football requiring a group of 1990). Lynda Miller (1993) puts it this way: people performing actions conventionally “the traditional concept of self [as autonomous associated with football (e.g., lining up, individual] has been challenged by a group of running plays), the presence of particular scholars who believe that the self resides not props (at a minimum an object designated as a only inside the person, but also in the “football”), something that can be recognized relationships, actions, artifacts, and objects as a playing field (a field but not a living room), surrounding her” (p. 63). This notion of a and an agreed upon set of rules (e.g., the “distributed self” locates learning in the location of the goal line that must be crossed “people, procedures, practices, events, and for it to count as a touchdown). If one of us structures participating in and constituting the casually crosses the goal line while taking a process we call ‘education’” (Miller, 1993, p. shortcut through the football stadium on the 64). Boston College campus, for example, this will

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 23 not count as a touchdown. It takes a group of way, it takes the institution of schooling to people performing just the rights actions in make a learning disability (McDermott & the right time and place to perform the social Varenne, 1995). practice of football. To be disabled also It is also not the case that a social requires doing the right things at the right constructivist stance denies the reality of time and place including the presence of categories of disability as some have suggested people authorized to adjudicate the (see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011). Human performance of schooling. The behaviors beings experience their worlds as social and associated with a learning disability, for cultural beings for whom socially constructed instance, will only count as a learning identities are quite real. However, as we argue disability if performed in the context of formal below, alternative constructions of social schooling in the presence of particular school reality can make various human differences officials (a teacher or school psychologist but more or less salient. not the janitor or school secretary). Without Social constructivists share with the application of the institutional machinery educators taking a deficit perspective a desire of schooling, educational disabilities do not that students with disabilities succeed in exist (Mehan, 1993). school. However, a social constructivist It is in this sense that disability is a perspective leads to a very different approach social construction. This does not mean, for supporting students with disabilities. however, that human differences do not exist Social constructivists explicitly reject deficit (see Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011 for a critical thinking that continues to dominate special take on social constructivist models of education and discussions of inclusion. Rather disability). Clearly, deafness, blindness, than focusing on deficits to be remediated or physical impairments, and intellectual and compensated for, social constructivists begin learning disabilities represent observable with a presumption of competence (Biklen, human differences. Educators working from a 2005). This is a philosophy of abundance that social constructivist perspective on disabilities do not deny the existence of these differences. in contrast to the philosophy of What they argue, however, is that these deficiency, is based on capability and differences represent normal human variation, competence. It presumes an optimistic not evidence of disorders or deficiencies explanation for human thinking, (Miller, 1993) and, for these naturally learning, and ability. This abundance occurring human differences to count as perspective assumes that each person, disabilities, certain conditions must obtain. regardless of age, gender, economic For instance, in the 18th century there was a circumstance, or geographic location, is high prevalence of deaf persons on Martha’s constantly in the process of constructing Vineyard but, because sign language was meanings based on her or his own life widely used by both deaf and hearing experiences. (Miller, 1993, p. 57) individuals, deafness was neither salient nor disabling. It took the influx of outsiders who The belief that all children, regardless of could not sign to disable the deaf on Martha’s their differences, are smart, competent Vineyard (McDermott & Varenne, 1995). learners leads to a different approach to Similarly, it takes the presence of certain inclusion for students with disabilities. Instead physical barriers to make various physical of focusing on low-level skills and research- impairments disabled. And, in much the same based instruction aimed at remediating

24 Global Education Review 1(1) students’ deficits, a social constructivist stance students with disabilities are permitted access seeks to challenge all students with the sort of to regular education settings only when they rich, engaging common in classrooms serving have proven they can fit in, when they are able the most academically successful students. to perform within the “normal range” for their The Optimum Learning Environment (OLE) age. project, for example, brought rich, engaging Disability educators working from a curriculum typically found in classes for gifted social constructivist stance reject what they students to inner-city, ELL special education characterize as an assimilationist perspective classrooms with great success (Ruiz & on inclusion that establishes a hierarchy Figueroa, 1995) (see Dudley-Marling and between those being assimilated and members Michaels [2012] for other illustrations of high of the group of (normal) students into which expectation curricula). Such a stance does not, students with disabilities are being assimilated however, obviate the need for individualized (Beratan, 2006). For these educators, diverse, support and direction for students with inclusive classrooms ought to be the normal disabilities, often provided by special state of affairs. The onus is on school officials education teachers. being able to demonstrate why some students Social constructivism contrasts should be excluded from regular education sharply with the deficit stance that dominates settings rather than having to show why they special education leading to a very different should be included (Brantlinger, 1997). In perspective on the meaning of inclusion, the other words, these educators, informed by a rationale for including students with social constructivist perspective, believe that disabilities in regular classrooms, and the the regular classroom should be considered means for achieving inclusion of students with the default setting for all children. This does disabilities. not mean, however, that inclusion requires treating all students the same, ignoring The Meaning of Inclusion differences between them (Hedge & As noted earlier, in many places in the US MacKenzie, 2005; Morrier & Gallagher, 2011). inclusion is defined as students with Students with disabilities may require extra disabilities spending more than 80% of their support to function in the regular classroom school day in regular education settings including the support of specially trained (Baglieri et al., 2011). From this perspective, teachers. It does mean, however, that the verb inclusion necessarily entails some exclusion. include should refer to ALL students. As The practice of limiting (some) students’ framed by the National Center on Inclusive participation in general education settings is Education (2011) consistent with the principle of educating students with disabilities in the least Inclusive education is characterized by restrictive environment which presumes that presumed competence, authentic regular classroom settings are not always the membership, full participation, most appropriate placements for students reciprocal social relationships, and with identified disabilities. The assumption learning to high standards by all here is that for many students with disabilities, students with disabilities in age- because they are deficient in crucial skills and appropriate general education abilities, it is appropriate for them to be classrooms, with supports provided to excluded from regular classroom settings for students and teachers to enable them to at least part of the school day. Put another way, be successful. (2011, p. 1)

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 25

Inclusive education reflects values and The Rationale for Inclusion principles and is concerned with Advocates for inclusion working from a social challenging the ways in which constructivist perspective point to a body of educational systems reproduce and research evidence they believe supports the perpetuate social inequalities with efficacy of inclusive practices (see Ben-Porath, regard to marginalized and excluded 2012; Brantlinger, 1997; and, Causton et al., groups of students across a range of 2011 for reviews on the efficacy of inclusive abilities, characteristics, developmental schooling). For example, the National Center trajectories, and socioeconomic on Inclusive Education (2011) cites a circumstances. Hence, inclusion is longitudinal study of 11,000 students with inexorably linked with the principles of disabilities which indicates that, for students equality and social justice in both with disabilities, more time spent in regular educational and social domains. (p. 168) classrooms correlates with higher test scores in math and reading, fewer absences, and Ultimately, inclusive education is a fewer referrals for disruptive behavior. tactic, an aspiration, and a statement of value Additionally, there is evidence that the (Slee, 2011). There may be practical and presence of students with disabilities in the pedagogical limits to inclusion (see Hansen, regular classroom does not negatively affect 2012) but the use of any exclusionary criteria the academic performance of students without will always impinge on the rights of children disabilities (Ferguson & Nusbaum, 2012; with disabilities. Hyatt, Iddings & Ober, 2005). Educators working from a deficit Including Students with Disabilities: perspective, on the other hand, often argue Reforming the Structures of Schooling that inclusion does not work for many As we noted above, educators who aspire to students with disabilities (Anastasiou & the full inclusion of students with disabilities Kauffman, 2011), that the evidence on the have been accused of denying human efficacy of inclusive classrooms is at best differences, of desiring to put an end to the mixed (Murphy, 1996). Advocates of inclusion special education enterprise as we have known are not indifferent to evidence on the it, returning to the “days of old” when many effectiveness of inclusion. However, inclusive students with disabilities languished in regular education is “first and foremost a political classroom with teachers unprepared to position” (Slee, 2011, p.14), part of a broad provide students with “appropriate” human rights agenda (Ben-Porath, 2012; instructional support (e.g., Anastasiou & Wilde & Avramidis, 2011). The inclusion Kauffman, 2011; Grider, 1995). It is true, as we movement is about the rights of disabled discussed in a previous section, that educators children – all children – to be educated in working from a social constructivist regular education settings alongside their perspective advocate for the inclusion of all peers (Liasidou, 2012). From a rights students with disabilities in regular perspective “inclusion is not about disability, classrooms as a matter of principle. It is not nor it is only about schools. Inclusion is about true, however, that the aspiration to educate social justice” (Sapon-Shevin, 2003, p. 26). all students with disabilities in inclusive Liasidou (2012) summarizes this position well settings coincides with a desire to end the when he states that practice of supporting students with specially trained teachers. Nor does an inclusionist

26 Global Education Review 1(1) perspective deny the importance of regular together “fail to challenge the architecture of classroom teachers being trained to support exclusion” (Slee, 2011, p. 108). ALL students, including students with Social constructivists advocate a disabilities. Certainly, no one believes (at least radical approach to inclusion based on the we hope not) that merely placing all students fundamental assumption that it is the with disabilities in the regular education structures of schooling, not students, which classrooms that produced so much failure in must change (Ashby, 2012; Chimbala & Fourie, the first place is a good idea. The argument 2012). They argue that the policy of educating that disabilities – but not human differences – students with disabilities in the “least are socially constructed is based, in part, on restrictive environment” enshrined in IDEA the claim that it is the structures of reflects an “assimilationist” stance in which contemporary schooling that transform “the onus is on disabled students who, given naturally occurring human differences into the necessary ‘supplementary aids and disabilities by transforming certain (normal) services,’ must find a way to fit into ‘the human differences into abnormal deficiencies. regular educational environment’” (Beratan, McDermott (1993) observes, for example, that 2006, online). This reinforces the dominant in US schools “we make something of narrative of schooling that valorizes normality differential rates of learning to the point that which, for students with disabilities, demands the rate of learning rather than the learning is overcoming or compensating for their the total measure of the learner” (p. 272). It is differences. Social constructivists argue that it easy to imagine a different set of priorities that is the educational environment that must valued other measures of learning with the adapt to the child, not the other way around effect of altering our sense of intellectual and (Chimbala & Fourie, 2012). As Slee (2011) puts learning disabilities, for example. Indeed, it, “inclusive school cultures require McDermott (1993) argues that there are fundamental changes in educational thinking cultures that do not place such an emphasis on about children, curriculum, pedagogy and the rate of learning. school organization” (Slee, 2011, p. 110). In any case, the mere physical For social constructivists, the project presence of students with disabilities in of inclusion is not limited to students with regular education settings does nothing to disabilities. Students’ special educational undo the educational structures that create needs are “inexorably linked with multiple and and perpetuate hierarchies of ability and intersecting sources of disadvantage like disability (Ashby, 2012, p. 92). The ethnicity, social class, gender and poverty” fundamental question for social constructivists (Liasidou, 2012, p. 168). Disability issues is: Inclusion in what? Social constructivists regularly intersect with issues of race, for agree with critics of inclusion that it would be example. Students of color continue to be disastrous to place students with disabilities in overrepresented in special education (Harry & unchanging schools and classrooms (Slee, Klingner, 2005) and, equally disturbing, 2011). But, social constructivists also argue students of color with identified disabilities that to create truly inclusive settings the are much more likely to be excluded from the restructuring of schools must go beyond mere regular classroom. Over 25% of black students technical solutions, curricular modifications, with disabilities, for instance, spend more than changes in the physical arrangements of 60% of their day outside the regular classroom schools and classrooms, the use of teacher compared to only 14% of white students (31st aides, or alternative assessment practices that, Annual Report to Congress on the

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 27

Implementation of the Individuals with from poverty, sexuality, minority ethnic Disabilities Eduation Act, 2009). Race also status, or other characteristics affects how students experience disability assigned significance by the dominant (Petersen, 2009). culture in their society. (p. 2) The evidence is fairly clear that the structures of modern schooling fail many In general, “inclusive education is code students, not just students with disabilities. for educational reform at all levels” (Slee, 2011, Michelle Fine (1991) noted that “in the United p. 122). States, public schools . . . were never designed Creating inclusive environments for all for low-income students or students of color” students is an aspiration, a problem to be (p. 31). The intractability of the so-called solved. In the long term this will require the achievement gap in which poor students and dismantling of the institutional structures of students of color significantly underperform schooling that never even imagined students relative to their more affluent, white peers (see with disabilities, students of color, or even National Assessment of Educational Progress, girls for that matter. Rigid, age-graded 2009) provides strong support for Fine’s curriculum, normative testing practices, and provocative claim. But it’s not just poor tracking and ability grouping will never be students, students of color and students with congenial to the human diversity that exist in disabilities who are not well served by the every school and classroom. In the place of structures of schooling. There have been these normalizing structures, we need to worries over the years that girls are not well create new institutional structures that offer served in math and science classes (American welcoming spaces for all students, Association of University Women, 1992). More acknowledging and building on the recently there has been a focus on the relative competence of all children regardless of their underachievement of boys relative to girls in differences and the communities from which K-12 classrooms (e.g., Newkirk, 2002). they come. Osgood (2005) notes that advocates for the Realistically, this is a long-term gifted also argue that the needs of political project that will encounter significant exceptionally talented students cannot be resistance from groups that benefit from adequately met in regular classroom settings. current structures of schooling. Therefore, Given the failure of the structures of more immediate strategies are required for modern schooling in the US, many American creating more welcoming, inclusive advocates for inclusion participate in the classrooms within existing structures of international disability studies discourse on schooling. Significantly smaller class sizes inclusion that goes beyond students with would help. Allington and McGill-Franzen disabilities (Baglieri et al., 2011). Ware (2004) (1989) argue that small class sizes could nicely summarizes this position: mitigate the need for identifying students as To be inclusive requires that we strive to disabled. Workshop structures for reading and identify and remove all writing that provide teachers with barriers to learning for all children. This opportunities to provide individual support means that we must and direction for students as needed (see attend to increasing participation not Dudley-Marling & Paugh, 2004, 2009, for just for disabled students example) are also helpful. Universal Design for but for all those experiencing Learning (UDL) seeks to “leverage disadvantage, whether this results technology’s power to make education more

28 Global Education Review 1(1) inclusive and effective . . . by offering Given these dramatically different [learners] 1) multiple means of perspectives it is unsurprising that the debate representation . . . 2) multiple means of about inclusion have become increasingly expression . . . and 3) multiple means of antagonistic. We do not doubt, however, that engagement” (Rose, Meyer & Hitchcock, educators of students with disabilities, 2005). Culturally-relevant pedagogies whatever their perspective on inclusion, are acknowledge and build on the linguistic and committed to doing what is best for students cultural knowledge all students bring with with disabilities. However, we believe that them to school (Gay, 2000, 2002). Most exclusion, for whatever reasons, will always sit important is replacing deficit thinking that uncomfortably with the principles of begins with the assumption of pathology with participatory democracy cherished by all a stance that begins with the assumption that Americans. all students are competent learners entitled to the same rich, engaging curriculum provided Notes to the highest achieving students. 1. In reality, only random events like the throw Ultimately, as Slee (2011) reminds us, of the dice distribute along a normal, bell- the exclusion of students with disabilities is shaped curve. Human traits and abilities are the consequence of a series of decisions. From never random and, therefore, never distribute a social constructivist perspective, the project “normally” (see Gallagher, 2010 for a detailed of inclusion is about identifying and then discussion of unsuitability of the normal curve challenging these decisions with the goal of as a model for describing human variation). doing better for all students in our schools. 2. To be fair, while the institution of special education is dominated by deficit models of Conclusion learning there are many special educators who We have presented two perspectives on have rejected deficit thinking. inclusion, each underpinned by sharply different, non-compatible notions of disability. The deficit perspective, which continues to References Allen, J. (2006). Failing to make progress? The aporias of dominate in special education and, perhaps, responsible inclusion. In E. Brantlinger (Ed.), Who American schooling more generally situates benefits from special education: Remediating disability in the minds and bodies of students (fixing) other people’s children (pp. 27-43). with the concomitant that inclusion focus on Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of helping students to overcome deficiencies in inclusive schools. London: Falmer Press. order to fit into normal school settings. A Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). Different social constructivist perspective on inclusion programs, indifferent instruction. In D. Lipsky focuses on cultural and social contexts that A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all (pp. 75-98). Baltimore, transform naturally occurring human MD: Brookes. differences into disabilities. Here the focus is American Association of University Women. 1992. How on reforming the structures of schooling. It is schools shortchange girls. Washington, D.C.: worth mentioning at this point that not all Author. Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J.M. (2011). A social groups have embraced the practice of constructionist approach to disability: inclusion however defined. Members of the Implications for special education, Exceptional deaf community and some advocates for gifted Children, 77(3), 367-384. education prefer segregation to inclusion Ashby, C. (2012). Disability Studies and Inclusive Teacher Preparation: A Socially Just Path for Teacher Education. (Osgood, 2005).

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 29

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Ferri, B.A. (2012). Undermining inclusion? A critical Disabilities 37(2), 89-99. reading of response to intervention (RTI), Baglieri, S. Bejoian, L.M., Broderick, A.A., Connor, D.J., International Journal of Inclusive Education, Valle, J. (2011). [Re]Claiming "Inclusive 16(8), 863-880. Education" toward Cohesion in Educational Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts. Albany, NY: State Reform: Disability Studies Unravels the Myth University of New York Press. of the Normal Child. Teachers College Record, Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools 113(10), 2122-2154. movement and the radicalization of special Bartolome, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard 294-309. Educational Review, 64, 17–194. Gallagher, J. J. (1994). The pull of societal forces on Ben-Porath, Sigal (2012). Defending Rights in (Special) special education. The Journal of/Special Education. Educational Theory 62(1), 25-39. Education, 27,521-530. Beratan, G. (2006). Institutionalizing inequality: Ableism, Gallagher, D. (2010). Educational researchers and the racism, and IDEA. Disability Studies Quarterly, making of normal people. In C. Dudley-Marling 26(2). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org & A. Gurn (Eds.), The myth of the normal curve Biklen, D. (2005). Autism and the myth of the person (pp. 25-38). New York: Peter Lang. alone. New York: University Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of research and practice. New York: Teachers nonrecognition of the politics of research and College Press. practice in special education, Review of Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive Educational Research, 67, 4-25-459. teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, 106-116. M. (2011). Does self- Gee, J.P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: contained special education deliver on its promi Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.) Bristol, PA: The ses?A critical inquiry into research and practice. Falmer Press. Journal of Special Education Leadership, Geertz, C. (1979). From the native’s point of view: On the 24(2), 61-78. nature of anthropological understanding. In P. Chimbala, R. & Fourie, E. (2012). Trekking Back to Rabinow & W.M. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive Mainstream for Inclusive Education, Is It social science (pp. 225-241). Berkeley, CA: There? Educational Studies 38(2), 175-187. University of California Press. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future Gergen, K.J. (1990). Social understanding and the discipline. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press. inscription of self. In J.W. Stigler, R.A. Shweder, Devore, S., Miolo, G., & Hader, J. (2011). Individualizing & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays inclusion for preschool children using on comparative development (pp. 569-606). collaborative consultation. Young Exceptional New York: Cambridge University Press. Children, 14(4), 31-43 Grider, J. R.(1995). Full Inclusion: practitioner's Dudley-Marling, C. & Baker, D. (2012). The effect of perspective. Focus on Autism and Other market-based school reform on students with Developmental Disabilities, 10(4), 1-11. disabilties. Disability Studies Quarterly, 32(2). Hammill, D. D.D., Leigh, J.E., McNutt, G., & Larsen, S.C. Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/ (1981). A new definition for learning disabilities. view/3187/3072 Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 336-342. Dudley-Marling, C. & Michaels, S. (2012). The power of Hansen, J.N. (2012). Limits to inclusion. International high expectation curricula: Helping all Journal of Inclusive Education 16(1), 89-98. students succeed with powerful learning. New Harrison, E. (November 15, 1958). “Parents bid state aid York: Teachers College Press. all retarded: Classes should not be only for Dudley-Marling, C. & Paugh, P. (2004). A classroom those of plus-50 IQ, legislators are told.” New teacher’s guide to struggling readers. York, N.Y.Harry, B. & Klingner, J. (2005). Why Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. are so many minority students in special Dunn, L.M. (1968). Special education for the mildly education? Understanding race & disability in retarded – is much of it justifiable? Exceptional schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Children, 35, 5-22. education? Understanding race & disability in Ferguson, P.M. & Nusbaum, E. (2012). Disability Studies: schools. New York: Teachers College Press. What Is It and What Difference Does It Make? Hart, J. E. & Whalon, K. J. (2011). Creating social Research & Practice for Persons with Severe opportunities for students with autism Disabilities, 37(2), 70-80 spectrum disorder in inclusive settings.

30 Global Education Review 1(1)

Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(5), 273- Michalko, R. (2008). Double trouble: Disability and 279 disability studies in education. In S. L. Gabel & Hedge, N. & MacKenzie, A. (2012). Putting Nussbaum's S. Danforth (Eds.), Disability and the politics of Capability Approach to Work: Re-Visiting education: An international reader (pp. 401– Inclusion. Cambridge Journal of Education 415). New York: Peter Lang. 42(3), 327-344 Miller, L. (1993). What we call smart: A new narrative Heilbrun, C. (1988). Writing a woman’s life. New York: for intelligence and learning. San Diego: Ballantine. Singular Publishing Group. Hunt, J. H. & Andreasen, J. B. (2011). Making the most of Morrier, M. J., & Gallagher, P. A. (2011). Universal Design for Learning. Mathematics Disproportionate representation in Teaching in the Middle School 17(3), 166-172. placements of preschoolers with disabilities in Hyatt, K. J. & Filler, J. (2011). LRE Re-examined: Five Southern states. Topics in Early Childhood Misinterpretations and unintended Special Education, 31(1), 48-57. consequences. International Journal of Murphy, D.M. (1996). Implications of Inclusion for Inclusive Education, 15(9), 1031-1045. General and Special Education. Hyatt, K.J., Iddings, C.D., & Ober, S. (2005). Inclusion: A Elementary School Journal 96, (5), 469-493. Catalyst for School Reform. Teaching Naraian, S. (2011). Pedagogic voicing: The struggle for Exceptional Children Plus, 1 (3), Retrieved participation in an inclusive classroom. [January 14, 2013] Anthropology & Education Quarterly 42(3), from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tec 245-262. plus/vol1/iss3/2 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Kerzner-Lipsky, D. & Gartner, A. (1989). Inclusion and (2009). The nation’s report school reform: Transforming America’s card: Reading highlights 2007. Washington, classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C.J., & Rinaldo, V. (2010). National Center on Inclusive Education (2011). Rationale Inclusion classrooms and teachers: for and research on inclusive education. a survey of current practices. International Durham, NH: Institute on Disability at the Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved at Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive Education and Critical http:// iod.unh.edu/PriorityAreas/inclusive- Pedagogy at the Intersections of Disability, Race, education/about_ NCIE.aspx Gender and Class, Journal for Critical Newkirk, T. (2002). Misreading masculinity: Boys, Education Policy Studies 10(1), 168-184. literacy, and popular culture. Portsmouth, NH: Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social Heinemann. practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke, & Odom, S.L., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical for Young Children With Disabilities: A Quarter literacies: Teaching and learning textual Century of Research Perspectives, Journal of practices (pp. 185-225). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Early Intervention, 33(4), 344-356. Press. Osgood, R.L. (2005). The history of inclusion in the Martin, E.W., Martin, R. & Terman, D.L. (1996). The United States. Washington, DC: Gallaudet legislative and litigation history of special University Press. education. Special Education for Children with Petersen, A. J. (2009). Ain't nobody gonna get me down: Disabilities, 6(1), 25-39. An examination of the educational experiences McDermott, R.P. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a of four African American women labeled with learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave disabilities. Equity & Excellence in Education, (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives 42(4), 428-442. on activity and context (pp. 269-305). New Pilon, M. (January 26, 2013). Sports access for disabled is York: Cambridge University Press. clarified, New York Times, D5. McDermott, R. & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture “as” Rose, D.H. Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.) (2005). The disability. Anthropology & universally designed classroom: Accessible Education Quarterly, 26, 324-348. curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears: MA: Harvard Education Press. A case study in the politics of representation. Ruiz, N. & Figueroa, R. (1995). Learning-handicapped In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding classrooms with Latino students: The optimal practice: Perspectives on activity and context learning environment (OLE) project, Education (pp. 241-268). New York: Cambridge University and Urban Society, 27, 463-483. Press. Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion a matter of social justice. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 25–28.

Two perspectives on Inclusion in The United States 31

Valle, J. Connor, D.J., Broderick, A.A., Bejoian, L.M., & Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling Baglieri, S. (2011). Creating Alliances Against and inclusive education. New York: Routledge. Exclusivity: A Pathway to Inclusive Educational Scanlon, D. & Baker, D. (2012). An Accommodations Reform, Teachers College Record, 113(10), Model for the Secondary Inclusive Classroom, 2283-2308. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 212-224. Ware, L. (Ed.). (2004). Ideology and the politics of Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (1984). A rational for the (in)exclusion. New York: Peter Lang. merger of special and regular education, Wilde, A., & Avramidis, E. (2011). Exceptional Children, 51(2), 102-111. Mixed feelings: Towards a continuum of inclu US Department of Education (2009). 31st annual report to sive pedagogies, Education, 39(1), 83-101. Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. About the Author(s) Washington, DC: Author. Curt Dudley-Marling, PhD, is a professor in the Lynch US Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Special School of Education at Boston College where his Education and Education Rehabilitative scholarship focuses on language, literacy, and disability Services, US Department of Education (2007). studies. History of twenty-five years of progress in educating children with disabilities through Mary Bridget Burns is a doctoral student in the Lynch IDEA. Washington, DC: Author. School of Education at Boston College. Her interests include educational attainment for the marginalized, bilingual education, and literacy education.