Inclusion
Running head: FORMAL DEFINITION OF INCLUSION
Formal Definition of Inclusion
Wade E. Bell
Western New Mexico University
1
Inclusion
2
Formal Definition of Inclusion
When I was told to ask three people from Lincoln Elementary about their
formal definition of inclusion, I chose staff members who have dealt with this
setting from both the general and special education fields. Phyllis Casuse,
Lincoln’s school principal was an obvious choice due to the fact she has taught in
special education for fifteen years and has advocated for inclusive settings for
many children throughout her profession. Debra Kraus, Lincoln’s integrated
preschool teacher, and Shannon Linville, a second grade teacher that has
supported students in inclusion for nine years and has advocated for this
placement in each situation, were the two other choices. Each of these
individuals has a unique definition for inclusion and expressed a genuine passion
for allowing students that are capable of success in such settings to be included
within the general education environment. However, it must be understood that
inclusion is not a unique concept these individuals designed but a setting
prescribed by IDEA ’97 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) that “stresses
the importance of students with disabilities participating in the general education
curriculum” (Deutsch-Smith, 2001, p. 49). With the law in mind, one must look at
the various least restrictive environmental settings that are available to students
within special education to visualize the formal definition of inclusion than
compare these concepts with the aforementioned professional definitions of the
individual’s chosen and their own to respond to inclusion.
Fundamentally, one must understand, for a definition of inclusion, that
special education is an evolving field that changes with the needs of those who
Inclusion
3
are representative of its population and by those who define and advocate for the
laws that govern the field. When lawmakers were exposed to various disabilities,
either to themselves or to other family members and friends, more emphasis was
placed on how to serve children with special needs in their least restrictive
environment. Therefore, “service delivery options continue to expand and
change…unfortunately, like many wide-scale education reform movements,
modifications to special education are usually not the result of carefully
conducted research about the efficacy of new practices” (Deutsch-Smith, 2001,
p. 44). For instance, some individuals support full inclusion, which is “an
interpretation that states that the least restrictive environment for all children with
disabilities is the general education classroom” (Deutsch-Smith, 2001, p. 45).
However, regardless of the good intentions about how full inclusion brings every
child into the general education setting, IDEA ’97 does not state that students
must have their needs met in this placement but advocates their learning to take
place in their least restrictive environment, which can include inclusion (DeutschSmith, 2001). Therefore, inclusion is only one setting in a large continuum
ranging from the general education classroom to more restrictive environments
such as a resource room or a residential facility. For children receiving services
from special education, however, this environment should always be considered
as an option. If inclusion is chosen as the least restrictive environment for a
child, “all special education and related services are brought to the student in the
general education setting” (Deutsch-Smith, 2001, p. 46). In this case, general
and special educators can either consult or collaborate in which, “general
Inclusion
4
education and special education teachers work together to meet the needs of
special needs students” (Deutsch-Smith, 2001, p. 46). This setting may also take
the form of co-teaching in which the general education and special education
teachers teach together in the same classroom to meet the needs of their
students (Deutsch-Smith, 2001). In either situation, student’s needs are being
met in their least restrictive environment if this setting is prescribed as their
appropriate placement.
Personally, I agree with the aforementioned formal definition of DeutschSmith (2001). I have been pushing for more inclusive settings for students within
Lincoln Elementary that have various special needs. One child that I work with
this year has me collaborating with his general education fourth grade teacher to
ensure his success within this environment. I go into this child’s class for fortyfive minutes daily to monitor his progress and give his general education teacher
ideas on how to modify workloads and make accommodations such as placing
the child near the board so he can see what is on it to ensure the placement’s
success. In other situations with different teachers and students, I have actually
taught lessons with the general education teacher to help teach the entire class
strategies to use in areas such as math and reading. Therefore, I have used
both co-teaching and collaboration as a strategy within my inclusive educational
experiences. I have no personal preference to which strategy is correct except
that I respect the general education teacher’s wishes in how they would like the
process to develop for the child within their room. I am comfortable with any
teaching strategy as long as the general education teacher is willing to accept my
Inclusion
5
help and is willing to promote a student with special needs acceptance within
their program. However, I do not believe this setting is appropriate for all
children. When deciding a child’s placement, I consider whether the child will be
successful within general education and how their needs will be met within this
setting. If I feel a child will need pullout resource services from a special
education room, I will advocate for this placement if it is in the best interest of the
child. I will not advocate full inclusion for every child if I do not believe this setting
will be as successful as a more restrictive environment within the continuum of
services offered by IDEA ‘97.
The first individual I interviewed, outside of myself, on a definition for
inclusion was Debra Kraus, Lincoln’s integrated preschool teacher. She teamteaches with a Title VIII general education teacher to meet the needs of her three
and four year old students. Mrs. Kraus helped design the first integrated
preschool in the Gallup McKinley County School (GMCS) District at Lincoln
Elementary due to her belief student’s needs were not being met prior to entering
more formalized educational environments such as kindergarten. Her definition
of inclusion takes into consideration her experience in the preschool program in
which “every child, whether they are in Title VIII or special education, will be
included in every activity that is scheduled” (D. Kraus, personal communication,
October 9, 2002). Mrs. Kraus went on to express that no student will ever be
excluded from activities done in her room, even if they feel they are unable to do
it because the environment can be modified to ensure each child is successful.
In Mrs. Kraus’s situation, students are all in full inclusion in which co-teaching is
Inclusion
6
incorporated. Both teachers get together to write lesson plans with individual
modifications and teach the students on a full-time basis within their preschool
setting. The theory behind this setting is that students are learning to socially
accept other students with exceptionalities ranging from speech language
impairments to mental retardation so they will be prepared to interact in the
elementary school settings. Her classroom has been an effective intervention
ensuring many children have their special needs met before entering the primary
grades reducing the probability of their placement in a more restrictive setting
while entering elementary school.
Shannon Linville, a second grade teacher that has strived for inclusion
within her classroom, has a slightly modified definition for inclusion. She stated
inclusion to be “a setting in which a student is placed within the general
education classroom and a special education teacher comes in and collaborates”
with her on strategies to use to teach the student in question (S. Linville, personal
communication, October 9, 2002). Mrs. Linville also pointed out that inclusion’s
purpose is to “assist students in staying in the general education classroom so
that students benefit from interactions from their peers and the their age and
grade appropriate curriculum with modifications” (S. Linville, personal
communication, October 9, 2002). However, Mrs. Linville also pointed out that
she has dealt with students that have severe and profound mental retardation
that were successful in inclusion and students with mild learning disabilities that
were not benefiting from the setting. Therefore, a child should be looked at as an
individual to decide whether to place them in this setting. The needs of the child,
Inclusion
7
in her mind, should be the primary focus of their educational placement. Mrs.
Linville stresses many valid points Deutsch-Smith (2001) emphasized such as
students receiving special education services need to be included in general
education but based on their individual needs “not on a full inclusion fits all
theory” (S. Linville, personal communication, October 9, 2002). Mrs. Linville also
emphasized that the two educators should collaborate to meet a child’s needs
and that both teachers should be responsible for the child’s education but that
the child is first and foremost a general education students making her primarily
responsible for the child’s academic success. She sees a partnership not in the
form of team-teaching but in working together to meet the needs of the child in
question without placing them in a more restrictive environment.
Phyllis Casuse, the principal of Lincoln Elementary, believes that
“including children into all aspects of the general education environment to the
maximum extent possible, when appropriate for the individual student” is the
proper use for the term inclusion (P. Casuse, personal communication, October
10, 2002). This, in her mind, can range from “placing a student in a completely
self-contained setting within a general education school to a student being placed
in a regular education class full time with minor modifications” (P. Casuse,
personal communication, October 10, 2002). However, Mrs. Casuse
emphasized that inclusion works best when teachers decide to attempt the
process rather than having it mandated upon them. In her mind, a teacher must
have their heart placed into this instructional setting which involves extensive
team teaching and collaborative communication that is intensively seeking to
Inclusion
8
ensure that the each student’s needs are being met within this setting. Mrs.
Casuse’s definition resembles the definition by Deutsch-Smith (2001) in the fact
that both spoke of team teaching and collaboration. However, Mrs. Casuse went
further in stating that she believes that “general and special education teachers,
to make the program successful, must have their heart in the program” (P.
Casuse, personal communication, October 10, 2002). To be truly successful,
Mrs. Cause (personal communication, October 10, 2002) used an example of an
inclusion class Lincoln Elementary set up in the fifth grade in 2001 that had
eleven students that were in special education. One of the students overheard
her stating to an EDC (Educational Development Center) coordinator the number
of students belonging to the special education program within the room and that
child wanted to know who these kids were because they didn’t realize any
children were in special education. Mrs. Casuse did not respond to this student’s
question directly because he was one of the students receiving services from
special education, but the special and general education teachers did such a
good job promoting an inclusive learning environment, not one child in the setting
recognized who was being served by special education. Therefore, the teachers
made every student feel special and ensured none left the program believing
they to be inferior or inadequate for the placement.
In conclusion, inclusion is an ever-evolving definition of a child’s
placement within special education that takes into consideration their least
restrictive environment. Mrs. Kraus, Mrs. Linville, Mrs. Casuse and myself all
have extensive experiences with inclusive settings. However, individually, each
Inclusion
9
person has his or her personal preferences about how the setting should be
managed. Mrs. Kraus believes in full inclusion and has served preschoolers
ranging from severe and profound mental retardation to typical students with no
exceptionalities within the classroom successfully. She believes no student
should be taken out of the general curriculum under any circumstances unless
their condition makes this setting unsafe for themselves or others. Mrs. Linville
believes, based on the needs of each individual student, a child should be placed
in general education if that environment is appropriate. However, she
emphasizes that it is her responsibility to teach the student with assistance from
special education personnel. Mrs. Casuse concurs with Mrs. Linville in that
students should be placed in inclusion based on their needs but she stresses that
teachers must be comfortable with the setting to be successful with its
implementation. Mrs. Casuse considers that the comfort of those giving children
services will best decide how services are received. I personally feel each child
has a right to be placed within their least restrictive environment based on their
needs as an individual. However, like Mrs. Casuse I wish the child to be placed
in a classroom in which the teacher has their heart in teaching a child with
special needs and do not consider the teaching strategy an issue as long as the
placement meets the needs of the students. Whether the teachers wish to teamteach or collaborate to meet the child’s needs, they will be successful only if they
believe in the program and the intentions that the placement is appropriate for
each child. Therefore, each person interviewed defines inclusion differently but
all take elements from the formal definition prescribed by the law, which ensures
Inclusion
10
a child should be placed in their least restrictive environment. How they define
this least restrictive environment may range from full inclusion to a needs-based
approach, but all want what they believe is best for the child.
Inclusion
References
Deutsch-Smith, D. (2001). Introduction to special education: Teaching in an
age of opportunity (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
11