Teaching special-needs students in general-education classrooms -- known as "inclusion" -- is not supported by reliable evidence, concludes a leading researcher, Hechinger's Jill Barshay reported in a January column. Douglas Fuchs focuses on academic outcomes, not any "psychological or social benefits" of inclusion.
She has a new column on the reaction by advocates, academics, parents and teachers, including a Reddit discussion with more than 160 comments.
In many schools, "they're either warehousing our children in sped (special education) or warehousing them in gen Ed," tweets Beth Netherland.
More time in mainstream classrooms is associated with a “slight” improvement in academic outcomes, says Nathan Jones, a Boston University professor and commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). However, there's evidence "intensive instruction" benefits many special-ed students. Jones worries most about the shortage of well-qualified special-education teachers and aides to help general-education teachers -- or to provide specialized instruction, writes Barshay.
"Almost nowhere actually does inclusion well," according to a teacher and mother. "I’ve never seen a properly implemented inclusion model in 22 years of teaching. I do believe with adequate supports and people, it could work. No one will pay for that though."
Students with learning disabilities are often passed along, said Monica McHale-Small is the director of education at the Learning Disabilities Association of America, in an email to Barshay. She often sees students who "spend the majority or all of their time in the general education classroom, and have made frighteningly little academic progress. Often, these children are being given A’s and B‘s on their report cards but standardized assessments indicate their reading and/or math skills have stagnated and the gap between them and their non-disabled peers grows each year. "
Justin Baeder, a former public school principal in Seattle who now conducts professional development for school leaders, posted a video commentary on X.
"I think often when inclusion is put in the IEP [individualized education program], it’s to save money. It’s because inclusion is what’s available. It’s not because inclusion is what the kid actually needs." -- Justin Baeder
States that spend more on special education don't have better outcomes, according to other research. What seems to work is effective, evidence-based reading instruction for all students, writes Beth Hawkins on The 74.
"The most common special education diagnosis, specific learning disability, includes children who are dyslexic or who have other neurological differences that interfere with their ability to process language or do math," writes Hawkins.
State to state, there are "massive inconsistencies in how many children states are identifying as needing services, how much is being spent on them and whether that funding is tied to better outcomes," she reports, citing Marguerite Roza, director of Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab.
"Mississippi is one of two states that dedicated the smallest portion of its education budget — some 8% — to meeting the needs of special education students, yet it is one of four where children with disabilities perform the highest on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress," she writes. The state's changes in teacher training and curriculum have led to strong reading gains for all students.