After decades of effort to create inclusive education, the authors assert that the time for full inclusion to manifest at scale may finally be at hand. This article first briefly considers the background and history of the inclusive education movement. The authors then reframe the discourse by defining inclusion through structures and interventions, not student characteristics. They review several emerging best practices that, when deployed within this new framework, increase the likelihood of system change or improvement to advance inclusive education.
AladjemD. K.BormanK. M. (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
2.
BenderW. N.ShoresC. (2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
3.
BraatenS. R.KauffmanJ. M.BraatenB.PolsgroveL.NelsonC. M. (1988). The regular education initiative: Patent medicine for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 55, 21-27.
4.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BurrelloL. C.HoffmanL. P.MurrayL. E. (2005). School leaders building capacity from within: Resolving competing agendas creatively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
6.
BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (2013). Unifying educational systems. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
BurrelloL. C.TracyM. L.SchultzE. W. (1973). Special education as experimental education: A new conceptualization. Exceptional Children, 40(1), 29-45.
8.
Center for Applied Science Technologies. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
9.
CertoN. J.LueckingR. G.MurphyS.BrownL.CoureyS.BelangerD. (2008). Seamless transition and long-term support for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33(3), 85-95.
10.
ChadwickK. G. (2004). Improving schools through community engagement: A practical guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
CopelandS. R.CosbeyJ. (2008). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 214-227.
12.
CurryC. (2003). Universal design accessibility for all learners. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 55-60.
13.
DanielsonL. C.BellamyG. T. (1989). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448-455.
14.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.DymnickiA. B.TaylorR. D.SchellingerK. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432.
15.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, (P.L. 94–142), U.S.C. § 20 Sec. 1400(d) (1975).
16.
ElmoreR. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
17.
FisherM.MeyerL. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 27, 165-174.
18.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK.MetzA.Van DykeM. (2010). Implementation teams: The active interface between interventions and effective human services. Chapel Hill, NC: FPG Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina.
19.
ForemanP.Arthur-KellyM.PascoeS.KingB. S. (2004). Evaluating the educational experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 29, 183-193.
20.
FurneyK. S.HasaziS. B.Clark-KeefeK.HartnettJ. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 81-94.
21.
GiangrecoM. F.SmithC. S.PinckneyE. (2006). Addressing the paraprofessional dilemma in an inclusive school: A program description. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 215-229.
22.
GoldbergI.CruickshankW. M. (1958). The trainable but non-educable: Whose responsibility?National Education Association Journal, 47, 622-623.
23.
GrosenickJ. K.GeorgeN. L.GeorgeM. P.LewisT. J. (1991). Public school services for behaviorally disordered students: Program practices in the 1980s. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 87-96.
24.
HalvorsenA.NearyT.HuntP.PiumaC. (1996). A model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of inclusive and special classes. Manuscript submitted for publication, PEERS Project, California State University, Hayward.
25.
HangQ.RabrenK. (2009). An examination of co-teaching perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259-268.
26.
HaringN. G.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). Guidelines for effective intervention with the severely handicapped: Toward independent functioning. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle.
27.
HoldheideL. R.ReschlyD. J. (2008). Teacher preparation to deliver inclusive services to students with disabilities. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
28.
HuntP.HaringK.Farron-DavisF.StaubD. (1993). Factors associated with the integrated educational placement of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 18(1), 6-15.
29.
HyattK. J.FillerJ. (2011). LRE re-examined: Misinterpretations and unintended consequences. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 1031-1045.
30.
JeraldC. (2005). The implementation trap: Helping schools overcome barriers to change. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
31.
KauffmanJ. M. (2004). The president’s commission and the devaluation of special education. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 307-324.
32.
KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (2005). Special education: What it is and why we need it. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 279-296.
34.
Kleinhammer-TramillJ.BurrelloL. C.SailorW. (2013). Special education: A critical perspective on reframing public policy for students with disabilities. In BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (Eds.), Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
KozleskiE. B.SmithA. (2009). The complexities of systems change in creating equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. Urban Education, 44, 427-451.
36.
LaneK. L.OakesW.MenziesH. (2010). Systematic screenings to prevent the development of learning and behavior problems: Considerations for practitioners, researchers, and policy makers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21, 160-172.
37.
LarsenL. A. (1977). Community service necessary to program effectivity for severely/profoundly handicapped. In SontagE.SmithJ.CertoN. (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 17-30). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
38.
LenzB. K.DeshlerD. D.KissamB. R. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39.
LoganK. R.KeefeE. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22(1), 16-27.
40.
LombardiT. P. (Ed.). (1999). Inclusion policy and practice. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
41.
LuiselliJ. K.PutnamR. F.HandlerM. W.FeinbergA. B. (2005). Whole-school positive behaviour support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183-198.
42.
MansetG.SemmelM. I. (1997). Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 155-180.
43.
MarzanoR. J.WatersT.McNultyB. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
44.
McCookJ. E. (2006). The RTI guide: Developing and implementing a model in your schools. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
45.
McGregorG.VogelsbergR. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices—Pedagogical and research foundations: A synthesis of the literature that informs best practices about inclusive schooling. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
46.
McLaughlinM. J.WarrenS. H. (1994). Restructuring special education programs in local school districts: The tensions and the challenges. The Special Education Leadership Review, 2(1), 2-21.
47.
McLeskeyJ.LandersE.WilliamsonP.HoppeyD. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings?The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131-140.
48.
McSheehanM.SonnenmeierR. M.JorgensenC. M.TurnerK. (2006). Beyond communication access: Promoting learning of the general education curriculum by students with significant disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 26, 266-290.
49.
MilesK. H.Darling-HammondL. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 9-29.
50.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention, U.S. Department of Special Education.
51.
O’DayJ. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
52.
PeetsmaT.VergeerM.RoeleveldJ.KarstenS. (2001). Inclusion in education: Comparing pupils’ development in special and regular education. Educational Review, 53, 125-135.
53.
RostetterD.KowalskiR.HunterD. (1984). Implementing the integration principle of PL 94–142. In CertoN.HaringN.YorkR. (Eds.), Public school integration of severely handicapped students (pp. 293-320). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
54.
RyndakD. L.AlperS. K. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
55.
RyndakD. L.WardT.AlperS.MontgomeryJ.StorchJ. F. (2010). Long-term outcomes of services for two persons with significant disabilities with differing educational experiences: A qualitative consideration of the impact of educational experiences. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 323-338.
56.
RyndakD. L.WardT.AlperS.StorchJ. F.MontgomeryJ. (2010). Long-term outcomes of services in inclusive and self-contained settings for siblings with comparable significant disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45(1), 38-53.
57.
SailorW. (1991). Special education in the restructured school. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 8-22.
58.
SailorW. (2009). Making RTI work: How smart schools are reforming education through schoolwide response-to-intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
59.
SailorW. (2010). Access to the general curriculum: Systems change or tinker some more?Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 249-257.
60.
SailorW.BurrelloL. C. (2013). Shifting perspective to frame disability policy. In BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (Eds.), Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives (pp. 21-40). New York, NY: Routledge.
61.
SailorW.DoolittleJ.BradleyR.DanielsonL. C. (2009). Response to intervention and positive behavior support. In SailorW.DunlapG.SugaiG.HornerR. (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 729-753). New York, NY: Springer.
SailorW.McCartA.ChoiH. (2012). A comparison of academic outcomes and implementation of the schoolwide applications model in Washington DC. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
64.
SailorW.PaulJ. L. (2004). Framing positive behavior support in the ongoing discourse concerning the politics of knowledge. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 37-49.
SarasonS. B. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
67.
SchumakerJ. B.DeshlerD. D. (2010). Using a tiered intervention model in secondary schools to improve academic outcomes in subject-area courses. In ShinnM. R.WalkerH. M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI (pp. 609-632). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
68.
ShoresC.ChesterK. (2009). Using RTI for school improvement: Raising every student’s achievement scores. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
69.
SontagE.BurkeP.YorkR. (1973). Considerations for serving the severely handicapped in the public schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 8(2), 20-26.
70.
SontagE.SmithJ.SailorW. (1977). The severely/profoundly handicapped: Who are they? Where are we?The Journal of Special Education, 11, 5-11.
71.
SugaiG.HornerR. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223-237.
72.
TurnbullA. P.TurnbullR.WehmeyerM. L. (2009). Exceptional lives. Special education in today’s schools (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
73.
TurnbullH. R.StoweM. J. (2001). Classification, social contracts, obligations, civil rights, and the Supreme Court. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 374-382.
74.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The condition of education 2002 (NCES2002–025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
75.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). OSEP’s 30th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Washington, DC: Author.
76.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD. L.Lapp-RinckerG.AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
77.
WengerE. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225-246.
78.
WongK. H.KauffmanJ. M.LloydJ. W. (1991). Choices for integration: Selecting teachers for mainstreamed students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27, 108-115.
