1. FULL INCLUSION is NOT the best educational setting for all students.
By: Kim Carr
Kelly Castino
Sharon Jimenez
Missy Glavey-Labedz

2. Definition of Full Inclusion
“All students with disabilities are placed in their neighborhood schools in general education classrooms for the entire day; general education teachers have the primary responsibility for students with disabilities” (53)
There are no exceptions to full inclusion.
Students are not separated and put into special education.
All students, regardless of disability, are put in the general education class. It does not matter whether they are blind, deaf, or physically disabled they are all put into the same classroom.
Hallahan, Daniel, Kauffman, James and Pullen, Paige. (2009) Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education (11th ed.)Boston: Pearson.

3. IDEOLOGY vs. EVIDENCE
The strongest argument for full inclusion comes from its philosophical/moral/ethical base. The selling points are emotionally powerful. (Thompkins & Deloney, 1995)
“The research does not support full inclusion for all students with disabilities.” (Hocutt, 1996)
“Total inclusion of all children is idealistic and unrealistic.” (Evans & Lunt, 2002)

4. Success in Special Education Setting

5. RESPONSIBLE INCLUSION
Disability is a broad concept – this is not a homogenous group of people.
Full Inclusion, as a mandate for all, depersonalizes services to children with disabilities and violates IDEA
In order to meet the complex, diverse educational needs of all students, a full array of placement and service delivery options must be available. (Hatlen, 2002)
“First ask, what does this child need? Then ask, what is the least restrictive environment?” (Henteleff, 2004)

6. THE TEACHER
As mentioned full inclusion is based upon the idea that all students, regardless of the level or type of disability, should be educated entirely in the same general education classrooms as their same-age peers.
Such a policy is very different from the belief of least restrictive environment (LRE) as written in the law.
LRE mandates choosing the least restrictive place to educate a student in which he or she can receive an appropriate education
Once full inclusion is implemented, teachers are forced to change their teaching methods to more;
child-directed, -
discovery-oriented,
project-based learning activities

7. The full inclusion classroom would include such a wide range of abilities that teacher-led, whole-group instruction would simply be impossible.
Teacher-led, small group instruction would not be possible either, given enough diversity in the classroom.
Because full inclusion has such an extremely wide range of abilities it would make direct, systematic instruction nearly impossible.
Not only must the teacher deal with students who have not yet learned to read, but also with students who have not yet learned to speak.
Children with disabilities should have their needs assessed individually and be placed in settings that will provide them with the best training for life

8. Meeting the Educational needs
General Education curriculum is grade appropriate
Special Education students have an IEP- Individualized Education Plan
IEP includes goals and objectives
Related services
Curriculum needs to be modified to fit the needs of special education students.

9. Addressing behaviors in the classroom
Teachers may not be trained to handle certain behaviors.
Behaviors may be distracting to other students.
Implementing a behavior plan
Behaviorist create behavior plan
Staff needs to be trained how to address and treat the behaviors

10. General Education Teachers not able to give Intensive Instruction
According to research by Zigmond (2003), students need more support than the general education teacher can provide in order to succeed, even with the help of an aide, a student might need more focused and rigorous attention to content (Hallahan, Kauffman, and Pullman, 2009, 56)

11. Too much demand on general education teachers
According to Sigmond (2003) full inclusion puts too much demand on the general education teacher (Hallahan, Kauffman and Pullman, 2009, 59).
Since the non-disabled kids might also need help, it thins out the time that the teacher can spend with each student.
The teacher also most likely will have to spend extra time with the child with the disability and have less time with the other children.

12. REFERENCES
Hallahan,D., Kauffman, J. and Pullen, P. (2009) Exceptional Learners: An Introduction to Special Education (11th ed.)Boston: Pearson.
Palmer, D.S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., and Nelson, M. (2001) “Taking Sides: Parent’s views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities.” Exceptional Children, 67, from Hallahan, Kauffman, and Pullman, 2009, 57)
Alberto,P.A.& Troutman,A.C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Saddle River NJ: Pearson
Baker,L. (2000). Information avenue archives,Inclusion. Retrieved from