Search results

Inclusion is a concept that has been around for years and is implemented in our schools. Some schools do it well and others are still working on it. Inclusion is meant to include students with disabilities in the general education classroom and curriculum. This chapter will briefly discuss special education as well as inclusion. Inclusion will be defined, and benefits and also myths of inclusion will be discussed. In addition, research that supports inclusion will be described. This chapter lays the foundation for the other chapters in this volume that will discuss inclusion and students with specific types of disabilities.

Change is not synonymous with improvement. Improvement of special education requires better instruction of individuals with disabilities. Although LRE and inclusion are important issues, they are not the primary legal or practical issues in improving special education. Federal law (IDEA) requires a continuum of alternative placements, not placement in general education in all cases. To make actual progress in education of students with disabilities, a single and strict principle of equality or/and antidiscriminatory legal instruments, such as the CRPD, is not enough. Social justice as a multifaceted principle can serve the education of the whole spectrum of special educational needs in national and international contexts. Responsible inclusion demands attention to the individual instructional needs of individuals with disabilities and consideration of the practical realities involved in teaching. If inclusive education is to move forward, it must involve placing students with disabilities in general education only if that is the environment in which they seem most likely to learn the skills that will be most important for their futures.

During the last decade, school districts throughout the United States have implemented inclusion programs utilizing a variety of models. A growing number of school districts are including all students with disabilities, even those with severe disabilities, into general education classrooms (Thousand & Villa, 1990). Although the term inclusion has no legal definition, and has been interpreted by educational professionals in a variety of ways, the concept has been in existence under the least restrictive environment (LRE) provision of PL 94-142, The Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 101-476, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 and most recently within PL 105-17, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997. According to IDEA (1997), public education agencies are required to ensure that: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [Authority 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a) (5)].The concept of inclusion has been defined in various ways within the literature. Catlett and Osher (1994) reviewed policy statements of professional organizations and found at least seven different definitions for inclusion. Currently, in education, inclusion is the term used when students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms for a portion of the school day (Falvey et al., 1995b). The term inclusion is differentiated from mainstreaming. Mainstreaming refers to the placement of students with disabilities in general education classrooms with appropriate instructional support (Meyen, 1990). When students are mainstreamed, they are usually prepared prior to placement into general education and are expected to “keep up” with the general classroom expectations (Rogers, 1993). Students with disabilities who are mainstreamed receive the same or nearly the same curriculum as general education students and are expected to “fit” into the general curriculum and classroom. On the other hand, within inclusive programs, the general education teacher is expected to make adaptations to provide a suitable environment for students with disabilities. Within the literature on inclusion, there are a variety of interpretations of the definition of inclusion (e.g. Gartner & Lipsky, 1987; Rogers, 1993; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). For the purposes of this chapter, inclusion is defined as programs in which students with disabilities (with the exception of gifted) are eligible for special education, have an individualized education program (IEP), and receive their education in general education classrooms using different, modified, and/or additional curricula from students without disabilities. This definition of inclusion is similar to “selective inclusion” as described by Zionts (1997). Selective inclusion refers to partial general education class placement of students with disabilities (Zionts). The assumption that this definition is based on is that general education is not always appropriate for every student; some students may benefit by receiving individualized services in addition to general education.

Inclusion has gained incremental attention in Lebanon especially since it has been associated with quality education, being the Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) as declared by the United Nations. Efforts have been made by public and private institutions to ensure that learners with disabilities get inclusive education, and progress has been noted despite several challenges further aggravated by the pandemic and the financial crises. This chapter presents a close examination at the condition of inclusion in Lebanon as it thoroughly studies all elements of inclusion with the assessment of challenges alongside the discussion of feasible solutions.

This chapter provides a framework for ethical decision making related to inclusive educational opportunities for secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) based on policies and practices in the United States. Relevant research findings are utilized to explore ethical principles involved in educational decision making for secondary students with I/DD, with discussions on how these are intertwined with U.S. policy. I/DD and inclusion, as described in the research literature and U.S. policy, are defined and the current status of inclusive practices are described. Next, an exploration of the rationale, as supported by empirical evidence, for educating students at the secondary level with I/DD, primarily with their peers who do not have identified disabilities, is shared along with the counter-narrative. Connections of inclusion to post-school outcomes and the lived educational experiences of students with and without disabilities and educators are considered, including ethical dilemmas and conflicts. Finally, factors influencing the application of inclusionary practices are provided.

Since the inception of Public Law 94-142, the delivery of services to children with exceptional learning needs (ELNs) has continually changed in an effort to provide optimal programming in least restrictive environments. The roles and responsibilities of teachers have also changed with the most dramatic changes likely seen in the roles of general education teachers, also known as inclusion teachers, serving children with ELNs. Federal mandates require general education teachers be actively involved in the referral and Individualized Education Program process. Once children with ELNs are serviced in inclusion classrooms, collaboration between the inclusion teacher and many professionals becomes an essential part of service delivery. This chapter focuses on elements of successful collaboration for planning, instructional delivery, and assessment, as inclusion teachers apply the principles of Universal Design for Learning and Differentiated Instruction. Academic, behavioral, and social needs of children in inclusive environments are also addressed as are essential elements addressing the collaborative roles and responsibilities of general education teachers as they embrace the opportunity to teach in inclusive classrooms.

This chapter conceptualises inclusion and neoliberalism and theorises the relationship between these two phenomena in order to contextualise the debates presented in the rest of the chapters in this book. Additionally, this chapter investigates the evolution of the meaning of ‘inclusion’ in the key international Bologna Process (BP) policy documents. This chapter is informed by a thematic analysis of 26 documents, issued between 1998 and 2020. The chapter demonstrates that understanding ‘inclusion’ only with regard to lifelong learning, student-centred education and the social dimension has pitfalls – there are overlaps between these action lines and, consequently, the relationships among them are unclear. A better way of understanding inclusion in Bologna may be through considering a tight relationship between the inclusion and neoliberal discourses in the support of marginalised groups in higher education (HE). The relationship has been evolving in relevant policy documents since 1998 which is the year that marks the preparatory Sorbonne meeting that gave life to Bologna in 1999. The inclusion discourse grew in strengths, while the neoliberal rhetoric firmly stood its ground since the beginning of the BP, while undergoing some transformations. In spite of such seemingly positive dynamic in the development of inclusion in the BP, its definition remained vague in the policy documents until 2020 as it was unclear which exact underprivileged groups were meant to be supported in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The 2020 conference outcome documents made a significant step towards closing the gaps in our understanding of whom inclusion targets in Bologna and how to implement these inclusion ideas. The chapter highlights this achievement and also prepares the reader to problematise its reach in national contexts later in the book.

A shift from a medical model to a social model of including learners with disabilities has occurred over the past 25 years (Stella, Forlin, & Lan, 2007). This shift has impacted both preservice teacher preparation and in-service teacher professional development. This chapter utilizes a conceptual framework built on the work of Forlin and colleagues (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Stella et al., 2007) to guide teacher preparation and professional development. This conceptual framework provides a model for (1) addressing attitudes and perceptions; (2) increasing knowledge of disability policies, laws, and evidence-based practices for providing instruction in inclusive settings; (3) and increasing experiences with individuals with disabilities, including experiences within inclusive settings. In addition, the framework incorporates aspects of the context within which inclusion is to occur. Implications include recommendations for teacher training and professional development to improve inclusive education for learners with LID.

The Macao SAR has instituted a policy-driven change that calls for schools to accept pupils with special education needs. However, making schools diverse and inclusive requires the consideration of multiple dimensions, such as the acceptance of all parties concerned, tangible and intangible support structures and cultures, and adequate resources. The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding teachers’ attitudes and perceived challenges towards the implementation of inclusion in a context distinguished by a prevalence of the private sector of education.

This qualitative study used grounded theory procedures through document analysis and in-depth interviews with teachers to analyse the attitudes and perceptions regarding inclusive education in the context of policy revision.

Data analysis revealed five themes related to teachers’ attitudes and perceptions: understanding inclusion; outcomes of inclusion; attitudes towards inclusion; preparedness to work in inclusive settings; and challenges and barriers. It is concluded that teachers show mixed positive and negative attitudes towards inclusion. Although the teachers acknowledge the significance of the reform, few of them feel prepared for and comfortable with teaching children with SEN. A lack of resources and support, and a disintegrated approach to inclusion seems to hinder the enactment of inclusive practices. Societal preconceptions against the full inclusion of children with disabilities in regular settings were reported by the participants.

This paper suggests ways to support teachers and expand inclusion practices in Macao.

This study aims to investigate whether gender predicts financial inclusion and whether education can fill the gender gap in financial inclusion when controlling for the effects of supply side factors of financial inclusion in low-income economies.

This study aims to investigate whether gender predicts financial inclusion and whether education can fill the gender gap in financial inclusion when controlling for the effects of supply side factors of financial inclusion in low-income economies.

The findings provided support for the gender gap in financial inclusion using the most basic measure of financial inclusion. However, using formal savings and access to credit, the gender gap hypothesis is not supported. Moreover, the results revealed that education reduces the gender gap in the basic form of financial inclusion. However, this study could not find any significant difference between men and women's financial inclusion in terms of saving at a bank or borrowing from a bank though men tend to save more than women informally.

The current study contributes to the literature by examining the role of education in the relationship between gender gap and financial inclusion when controlling for the effects of heterogeneous infrastructure and the supply side factors of financial inclusion among the selected countries.